[1] Where multiple co-litigants jointly appoint a defense counsel, the method of calculating litigation costs relating to attorney fees

[2] In a case where two co-litigants, such as a subsequent purchaser, etc., jointly appointed a defense counsel and won a lawsuit on the merits of the lawsuit filed by the creditor against the debtor, beneficiary, subsequent purchaser, etc., the case holding that the amount of attorney's fees to be paid by the said two co-litigants, which are included in the litigation costs of the lawsuit on the merits, should be calculated first, and then the creditor who lost the amount equivalent to 1/2 thereof should be paid to the said applicant

[1] Articles 109(1) and 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs for Attorney Fees / [2] Articles 109(1) and 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs for Attorney Fees

[Defendant-Appellant] Appellant (Attorney Choi Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Credit Guarantee Fund

Seoul High Court Order 2007Ra822 dated May 30, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The court below held that when several co-litigants jointly appoint a defense counsel, the costs of the lawsuit shall be calculated based on the total amount of the costs of the lawsuit against all co-litigants, and if there exists any overlap between them, the costs of the lawsuit shall be calculated on the basis of the highest amount of the costs of the lawsuit among all co-litigants, and the value of the lawsuit against the debtor, and the amount of the lawsuit against the re-litigants shall not be added. In the case of a claim for performance seeking monetary payment against the debtor and a subjective consolidation of the creditor's revocation and restitution claim against the beneficiary or subsequent purchaser of a single object due to the debtor's fraudulent act, each claim shall be calculated on the basis of the larger amount of the value of each claim, as the economic interest is identical or overlapping in the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party who jointly appointed a defense counsel, and the non-party who jointly appointed a defense counsel, the amount of the attorney's fees to be included in the costs of the lawsuit against the lawsuit on the merits, such as revocation of the creditor and restitution to the original state, the amount of the attorney fees to be repaid by the re-appellant.

Examining in light of the relevant statutes and records, such as “Rules on Recognition of Civil Procedure, etc.”, the method of calculating the amount of litigation costs relating to attorney fees by the court below is justified.

The order of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)