2011Ra1074 Confirmation of litigation costs

OOO Co., Ltd.

Seoul Jongno-gu ○○ Dong

○○○○

○○○○ Corporation

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○ Dong

○○○○

Seoul Central District Court Order 2011Kao-1759 Dated July 18, 2011

September 22, 2011

The petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. The applicant asserts that the lawsuit in the case, such as the cancellation of the pledge right, which is the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap80079, the first instance court, the case subject to the application for the determination of the amount of the lawsuit costs of this case, is improper in the first instance court's decision that calculated the attorney's fees based on the above KRW 464,330,00, which was recognized in the first instance court's decision (The monetary claim of KRW 100,000, KRW 364, 330,000 + KRW 364, 330,000) and KRW 828,660,00 (The monetary claim of KRW 100,000, KRW 660,000 + KRW 728,660,000).

B. According to Article 13(1)4(b) of the Rules on the Stamps Attached for Civil Litigation, Etc., a claim for the cancellation of a security right based on the registration, etc. (hereinafter "registration") shall be filed in the lawsuit, 1/2 of the amount of the secured debt within the limit of the value of the case of the object. According to the records, the respondent at the first instance court of the subject case revealed that the respondent filed a claim against the applicant for the cancellation of a security right established as to the claim for unjust enrichment of KRW 100,000 and the claim for the cancellation of a pledge established as to the deposit claim of KRW 728,660,000 on the ground of the invalidity of the contract, and in light of the above provisions, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit for the cancellation of a security right is KRW 728,660,000, KRW 364,333,000.

Therefore, the decision of the court of first instance in this case is just in the decision of the court of first instance in 464, 330,000 won, and the above argument of the applicant is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, the applicant filed an objection against the ruling of May 31, 201 by the court of first instance (in the form of an immediate appeal, but its substance is an objection) with respect to the ruling of May 31, 201 by the court of first instance, and added a request for the judgment on the burden of litigation costs and the determination of the amount of litigation costs with respect to the portion for which the claim is reduced by the respondent in the case at the court of first instance. Since the disposition of the court of first instance and the judgment on the objection thereto constitute one instance, the court of first instance should have made a judgment on this portion by deeming that the purport of the application is extended by the above objection. However, the court of first instance failed to make any judgment on this portion, and omitted the judgment, and this part is still pending in the court of first instance pursuant to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the court of first instance

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

September 22, 2011

The presiding judge shall write down the board of directors

Judges Kim Jong-hoon

Re-determination of judges