[1] The method of explaining the grounds for the litigation aid under the Civil Procedure Act

[2] The subjective scope of the effect of the litigation aid under the Civil Procedure Act, and the scope of the litigation aid to be decided by the court where the appointed party files a lawsuit aid

[1] Under the Civil Procedure Act, a litigation structure may be conducted either at the request of a person who falls short of the financial capacity to pay litigation costs or ex officio. In this case, the application shall be made in writing, and the applicant must explain the reason for the aid, and the written application shall be accompanied by a document stating the financial capacity of the applicant and his family living together with the applicant, and it is reasonable to view that the submission of such written statement about the financial capacity is an example for the applicant to prove that the applicant is a person who falls short of the financial capacity to pay litigation costs. Therefore, it is possible for the applicant to vindicate the lack of financial capacity by any other means, and the court shall determine whether to vindicate it in accordance

[2] Since a litigation aid takes effect only to a person who received it, where many of the designated parties appoint several of them as the designated parties, and the designated parties apply for the litigation aid, it shall specify the relationship with the designated parties and the designated parties, and shall clarify which scope of the litigation aid is to be provided to either of them.

[1] Article 128 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure / [2] Articles 130(1) and 136 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant 1 and eight others (Attorney Ma Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2002Kagi530 dated December 20, 2002

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

1. According to the records, the re-appellant (designated party, hereinafter referred to as the "re-appellant") is the designated party designated by 2,358 persons, and the re-appellants filed a lawsuit for damages against Down-carcom Company, etc. but appealed in the first instance court after having been sentenced to a full loss judgment, and filed an application for the lawsuit of this case with the court of first instance. The court below ordered the court of first instance to make and submit a "written statement concerning property relations" as evidence against the lack of financial capacity of the designated parties. However, the appointed parties 1,308 persons prepared and submitted a written statement concerning property relations, but the remaining 1,050 persons did not submit it. The court below acknowledged that the remaining 1,308 persons submitted a written statement concerning property relations were granted a lawsuit structure falling under the 308 persons petition of appeal and the remaining 1,060,932,500 persons were not able to prove the lack of financial capacity in the petition of appeal.

2. Under the Civil Procedure Act, a litigation structure may be conducted either at the request of a person who falls short of the financial capacity for paying litigation costs or ex officio (Article 128(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In such cases, the application shall be made in writing (Article 24(1) of the Rules on Civil Procedure). The applicant must explain the reason for the structure (Article 128(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The application must be accompanied by a document stating the financial capacity of the applicant and his/her family members (Article 24(2) of the Rules on Civil Procedure). Since it is reasonable to deem that the submission of a written statement on such financial capacity is an example by a document proving that the applicant is a person who falls short of the financial capacity for paying litigation costs, it is possible for the applicant to vindicate the lack of financial capacity by any other means, and the court shall determine whether to vindicate it in accordance with the free evaluation of evidence.

According to the records, the contents of the lawsuit of this case filed by the re-appellant are produced and supplied by the above Multi-Babacom et al. and sought damages on the ground that 2,358 designated persons who participated in Vietnam as military personnel of the Republic of Korea at the time of defoliant spreaded by the Vietnam War had suffered from various diseases, and the lawsuit of this case was accepted in the first instance court, and the re-appellant's application for legal aid was accepted in the first instance court, and according to various data such as confirmation sources of the living conditions of defoliant patients prepared by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, most of the designated parties suffered economic difficulties due to the occurrence of various diseases after the Vietnam War, etc., it is sufficient to view that the court below's submission of the statement of property relations as requested by the designated parties of this case was insufficient, even if the designated parties of this case failed to submit the statement of property relations required by the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the remaining applications for legal aid which concluded that 1,050 of the 2,358 designated parties of this case did not submit a statement of property relation, and that they cannot immediately be deemed to lack the financial ability to pay the stamp for the appeal, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for legal aid under the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the decision.

3. Meanwhile, since a litigation aid takes effect only for a person who received it (Article 130(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In this case, where multiple designated parties appoint several persons among them as designated parties, and the designated parties apply for a litigation aid, it shall clarify the relationship with the designated parties and the designated parties, and specify which scope of the litigation aid to the designated parties. However, the court below did not clarify this, and determined that the re-appellant simply granted a litigation aid and dismissed the remainder of the petition of appeal. In this regard, the court below's order cannot be maintained.

4. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)