2019Ma6152 Determination of litigation costs

Korea

Other Party

Attorney Go-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Central District Court Order 2019Ra482 dated July 23, 2019

July 29, 2021

The reappeal is dismissed.

Expenses for reappeals shall be borne by re-appellants.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 165(1) of the Civil Act provides that "The period of extinctive prescription shall be ten years, even if a claim established by a judgment falls under the short-term extinctive prescription," and Article 165(1) of the Civil Act provides that "Article 165(1) of the Civil Act does not apply to a claim the maturity of which is not yet due at the time of the final and conclusive judgment.

Where a court in a lawsuit does not determine the amount of litigation costs while rendering a judgment, the existence of the obligation to reimburse the litigation costs becomes final and conclusive by the judgment on the burden of litigation costs, but the existence of the obligation to reimburse the litigation costs becomes final and conclusive upon the party’s application, it cannot be deemed that the due date for the obligation arrives until the specific amount of litigation costs is determined separately by the final and conclusive decision on the amount of litigation costs stipulated in

Although extinctive prescription takes place from the time when a judgment corresponding to a judgment on the cost of lawsuit becomes final and conclusive, the ten-year extinctive prescription under Article 165(1) of the Civil Act does not apply pursuant to Article 165(3) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the State’s right to claim reimbursement of litigation costs ought to be deemed to have expired if it is not exercised for five-year period pursuant to Article 96(1) of the National Finance Act as the State’s right to benefit

2. The lower court rejected the re-appellant’s claim for reimbursement of litigation costs on the ground that the extinctive prescription has expired five years since June 19, 2012 after the judgment on the merits ordering the respondent to bear the litigation costs, and the subsequent claim for determination of the amount of litigation costs of this case filed was unlawful on the ground that there was no benefit for

In light of the above legal principles and records, the order of the court below is just, and there is no error of violation of the Constitution and the law that affected the trial.

3. The reappeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

July 29, 2021

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Lee Dong-gu