[1] Whether res judicata is recognized even in the determination and order of a final determination of a substantive relationship (affirmative)

[2] Whether the existence of the obligation to reimburse litigation costs can be asserted in the procedure for determining litigation costs (negative)

[3] Whether res judicata is recognized even in the final decision of litigation costs (affirmative)

[4] In a case where it is not clear that a part of the claim is a claim while filing a lawsuit seeking performance against a part of the claim, whether res judicata effect of the judgment affects the remaining claim after filing a claim (affirmative)

[5] The case holding that where the court did not expressly state that a part of a claim is filed in the course of filing an application for confirmation of litigation costs with respect to an individual expense item included in the litigation costs, res judicata effect of the final determination of litigation costs is not allowed again because it is not in the amount of the relevant individual expense item

[1] A final and conclusive judgment has res judicata as to the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of a lawsuit, and is a final and conclusive judgment on the decision and order where the substantive relations are determined ultimately, the final and conclusive judgment has res judicata.

[2] In the confirmation procedure of litigation costs, the amount of the litigation costs to be reimbursed shall be determined within the scope of the application, and the existence of the obligation to reimburse shall not be examined and determined.

[3] If, after a judgment on the substantive relationship of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit becomes final and conclusive in the judgment on the merits which have already been res judicata, the court rendered a final decision on the costs of lawsuit according to the number of claims filed by the party who is the right of recourse, the decision on the costs of lawsuit is a final and conclusive judgment which specifically specifies the judgment on the substantive relationship of the cost

[4] As long as a lawsuit seeking the performance of part of a claim is filed and the remainder is reserved and only a part of the claim is claimed, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend to the remaining remaining part after the claim is made. Therefore, the remaining part cannot be separately claimed.

[5] The case holding that where the court did not expressly state that a part of a claim is filed in the course of filing an application for confirmation of litigation costs with respect to an individual expense item included in the litigation costs, res judicata effect of the final determination of litigation costs is not allowed again because it is not in the amount of the relevant individual expense item.

[1] Articles 202 and 210 (see current Article 224) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) / [2] Articles 95 (see current Article 104), 96 (see current Article 105), and 10 (1) (see current Article 110 (1)) of the former Civil Procedure Act) / [3] Article 100 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 110 (4)) / [4] Article 260 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 206 (Special Provisions) of the former Civil Procedure Act) / [2] Article 216 (Special Provisions of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 20026)

[2] Supreme Court Order 86Ma55 decided Mar. 8, 1986 (Gong1986, 860) 200Ma7028 decided Aug. 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2151) / [4] Supreme Court Order 92Da33008 decided Jun. 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2100), Supreme Court Decision 96Da1276 decided Oct. 24, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3571)

Han Investment Trust Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Ho-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Order 2000Ra 184 dated July 6, 2000

The reappeal is dismissed.

A final and conclusive judgment has res judicata as to the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of a lawsuit, and has res judicata effect in the case of a final and conclusive judgment on a decision or order where the substantive relations are finally determined.

On the other hand, the court shall render ex officio a decision on the whole costs of lawsuit in the court (Article 95 of the former Civil Procedure Act and Article 6626 of the former Civil Procedure Act; Article 95 of the same shall apply to the following cases); where a higher court alters the judgment on the merits of the case or where the court to which the case was remanded or transferred renders a decision closing the case, it shall render a decision on the whole costs of the lawsuit (Article 96 of the former Civil Procedure Act). Where the court determines the costs of lawsuit together in a trial to which the costs of lawsuit are to be borne by the court at the same time, but it shall decide upon the application of the parties after the final and conclusive judgment (Article 100(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act). In the process of confirmation of costs of lawsuit, the amount of the cost of lawsuit to be reimbursed shall be determined within the scope of the application, and it shall not be possible to examine and determine the existence of the obligation of repayment itself (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma7028,

Therefore, if, after a judgment on the substantive relationship of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit has become final and conclusive in the judgment on the merits which have already been res judicata, the court rendered a final decision on the costs of lawsuit according to the number of claims filed by the party who is the right of recourse, the decision on the costs of lawsuit is a final and conclusive judgment which specifically embodys the judgment on the substantive relationship of the cost of lawsuit

Furthermore, insofar as a lawsuit seeking the performance of part of a claim is not clearly stated that the remainder is reserved and only a part of the claim is claimed, the res judicata effect of the judgment does not extend to the remaining remaining part after the claim is made (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da33008 delivered on June 25, 1993).

After recognizing the facts as to the process, etc. of the application of this case, the court below determined that it is not allowed to seek an additional decision on the amount of expense since res judicata has occurred in relation to the individual expense items and amount already determined, since the decision by the court ordering the burden of litigation costs was confirmed based on the judgment ordering the burden of litigation costs. In light of the above legal principles, there is no error of law that affected the judgment.

Therefore, the re-appeal by the applicant is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)