The meaning of “any case significantly unreasonable” which is a reason for the discretionary reduction of attorney’s fees as stipulated in Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs in Fees for Attorneys

Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs in Attorney Fees

Supreme Court Order 2005Ma1270 Decided April 26, 2007

The 2000 Central Federation Specialized in Asset-backed Securitization

Hassima Co., Ltd.

Gwangju High Court Order 2010Ra17 dated April 1, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Costs of Trial by Attorney Fees (hereinafter “Rules”) shall be interpreted as “where it is remarkably unfair” in light of all the circumstances such as the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the amount of remuneration calculated by Articles 3 and 5 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Costs of Trial, the progress and period of lawsuit, the reason and difficulty of the case, the nature and difficulty of the case, and the degree of efforts by the attorney to the other party, in recognition of the entire calculated amount under Articles 3 and 5 of the Rules on the Remuneration as litigation costs and orders the other party to pay the other party to pay it, in violation of the principle of fairness and equity” (see Supreme Court Order 2005Ma1270, Apr. 26, 2007).

2. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below determined that the decision of the court of first instance, which calculated the amount (33 million won in the first instance and the second instance) actually paid by the applicant as litigation costs within the scope of the amount stipulated in Article 3 of the Rules of Remuneration, cannot be deemed to have brought about a result contrary to the idea of fairness or equity.

3. However, according to the records, the representative of the applicant for the lawsuit on the merits of this case's lawsuit was the same law firm in the first instance court and the original instance court, and the applicant's representative was engaged in various procedural acts, such as preparing a complaint and preparatory documents (two times) in the process of the lawsuit at the first instance court, submitting a documentary evidence, and requesting a fact-finding. On the other hand, the original court only attended two times during the lawsuit for about seven months, and there was no document prepared or additional evidence submitted. The substantial issue of the lawsuit was merely whether the claim for the construction cost reported as the secured claim of the lien claimed by the re-appellant was actually existing, and all of the above issues was already disputed at the first instance court, and thus there was no special new attack and defense method in the first instance court and there was no new attack and defense method in the first instance court, and all of the first instance court and the lower court rendered judgment in favor of the applicant on the grounds that there was no claim for the construction cost of the re-appellant's lawsuit at the first instance court and the lower court did not have any substantial issues and actual issues.

4. In light of the aforementioned facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, unlike the recognition of the full amount of the attorney fee of the first instance court 33 million won paid by the applicant as the litigation cost within the scope of the amount calculated pursuant to Article 3 of the remuneration rules, recognizing the full amount of the attorney fee of the first instance court 33 million won in the court below as the litigation cost and ordering the re-appellant to repay the fee. In light of all the circumstances such as the progress and period of the lawsuit in this case in the court below, nature and difficulty of the case, the amount of remuneration calculated by the fee rules, the degree of efforts to which the attorney is an attorney, etc., it shall be deemed to be unlawful as it causes a serious

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the decision of the court of first instance that recognized not only the first instance attorney fee but also the attorney fee of the court below as the whole amount calculated according to the standard under Article 3 of the Rules on Remuneration without discretionary reduction and ordered reimbursement of all the costs of lawsuit. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 6 of the Rules on Remuneration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Re-appellant's assertion pointing this out has merit.

5. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)