Pakistan Asset Management Corporation

Respondent 1 and 6 others (Law Firm UPS, Attorneys Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Order 2016Kao-492 dated September 29, 2016

All appeals filed by the respondent are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are proved:

A. On May 16, 2013, the respondent and ten others (hereinafter referred to as the “Respondent, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the applicant on May 16, 2013 against the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap37741 (hereinafter referred to as “the first instance court of the case”). The purport of the claim was that “the applicant paid 216,576,360 won to the respondent 1 (Re-Appellant 1) and 21,550,000 won to the respondent 2, 11,550,000 won to the respondent 3, 11,550,000 won to the respondent 4, 56,200,000 won to the respondent 5, 11,50,000 won to the respondent 6,500,000 won to the respondent, 230,000 won to the respondent, 2301,000 won to the above respondent and delay damages to the respondent 6.”

B. On September 18, 2014, the above court dismissed all claims filed by the respondent, etc., and rendered a judgment that the respondent, etc. bears the costs of lawsuit.

C. The respondent, etc., dissatisfied with the above judgment, filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court No. 2014Na54641 (hereinafter “the second instance court of this case”), and added a claim for damages arising from a tort in the appellate court’s preliminary claim. The above court dismissed both the respondent, etc.’s appeal and the preliminary claim added in the appellate court’s appeal on September 18, 2015, and sentenced the respondent, etc. to bear the costs of lawsuit after the appeal.

D. On February 18, 2016, the respondent appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da66632 (hereinafter “Third Instance”) and the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals by the respondent and rendered a judgment that the costs of appeal are borne by the respondent.

E. The Claimant appointed each law firm Sejong as the legal representative in the first, second, and third trials of the merits suit, and paid 49,52,470 won in the first instance court of the merits suit, 17,849,700 won in the second instance of the merits suit, and 8,307,200 won in the third instance of the merits suit.

2. Calculation of litigation costs;

The decision of the first instance is accepted (Article 443(1) and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Judgment on the respondent's assertion

(a) A captain;

1) In a lawsuit on the merits, the respondent et al. instituted a co-litigation on the merits of the lawsuit, and there was a growing amount of claims among several persons. Accordingly, calculating the total litigation costs that the respondent et al. should reimburse to the applicant and imposing them equally on each respondent is a result of having the Respondent bear the litigation costs for the portion that is not directly related to the applicant, and thus is contrary to equity. Accordingly, only the part directly related to the respondent ought to be based on the calculation of the litigation costs.

2) The amount of the litigation cost to be repaid to the applicant by the respondent shall be calculated by calculating the total amount of the litigation cost to be repaid to the applicant by the respondent and then divided by each respondent. Nevertheless, the first instance court's decision was unlawful since it has borne equally to the respondent, etc.

3) The amount of litigation costs for each respondent calculated by the first instance court should be reduced in an excessive and appropriate manner.

(b) Markets:

1) As to the allegation that it is improper to impose the Respondents equally the total litigation cost that the Respondents, etc. should reimburse on the applicant

A) In a case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law and let him/her file a lawsuit, barring special circumstances (e.g., that the co-litigants are related to the co-litigants to the extent that they are substantially unrelated, but in form, co-litigants to the extent that they are substantially unrelated, etc.), the attorney’s fees shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the Rules on Remuneration of Attorneys based on the total sum of the values of each lawsuit object of the co-litigants who appointed the same attorney-at-law (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma5563, Nov. 30, 200, etc.).

In such a way, calculating the attorney’s fees is based on ① the fact that the calculation method of the attorney’s fees to be included in the litigation costs is low as there are many values of the subject-matter of lawsuit, ② the fact that, in calculating the stamp amount calculated according to the value of the subject-matter of lawsuit in the reverse class system, there is no overlapping relationship or absorption relationship, so long as the total value of multiple subject-matter of lawsuit is calculated by adding up all the values of the subject-matter of lawsuit; ③ the fact that the degree of effort required for one case to be jointly accepted by several co-litigants from the same co-litigants is considered as having been accepted by each co-litigants, compared to the case where several different proposals are made by each co-litigants. Therefore, in order to recognize the exception of the above principle, there is little difference between the co-litigants and the case where one lawsuit is jointly entrusted by all co-litigants and the case where several co-litigants are made by each co-litigants with the delegation of each co-litigants.

B) According to the records, it is proved that the respondent et al. is the person who acquired the right of tenant or tenant of the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) 11,410.2 square meters and its ground ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the beneficiary certificates issued by the △△△△△ Group Committee indicating the right to receive the rent deposit amounting to 70%, and the respondent et al. entered into a lawsuit on the merits of the case by the respondent et al. and sought payment of the agreed amount equivalent to 30% of the balance of the above beneficiary certificates as consolation money.

C) According to the above vindication, the respondent, etc. is not only a tenant in the same commercial building but also a tenant who acquired the same type of beneficiary certificates based on the tenant's status, and the fact that the cause of the claim in the lawsuit on the merits is the same alternatively. Thus, from the standpoint of the legal representative, it is determined that the litigation representative can reduce the efforts to put in the lawsuit by obtaining delegation from the co-litigants at once, rather than performing the separate lawsuit on the merits by co-litigants. Therefore, in this case, it is difficult to view that the case "only is a form of co-litigation and it is substantially without an independent lawsuit or any other independent lawsuit," and in principle, the respondent's fees should be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the Rules on Attorney Fees based on the total sum of values of each subject of lawsuit

D) Ultimately, the respondent’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

2) As to the assertion that a lawsuit by respondent should be divided in proportion to each other

Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may jointly or severally charge the costs of lawsuit to the co-litigants, or may charge them by any other means, depending on circumstances.” This purport is that the co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally against the other party, in a case where the court determined that the co-litigants should bear the burden of all or part of the costs of lawsuit without ordering the co-litigants to jointly or jointly bear the costs of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Order 2001Ma1774, Oct. 16, 2001, etc.).

In the judgment of the first, second, and third trials on the merits of the case, the costs of the lawsuit, the costs of the lawsuit after the appeal, and the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the respondent, etc., or the respondent. The judgment on each of the above costs of the lawsuit is to determine the ratio of the costs of the lawsuit by co-litigants or to order the co-litigants to jointly bear the costs of the lawsuit, and the whole costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the co-litigants. Accordingly, when applying the above legal principles, the respondent shall equally bear the costs of the lawsuit against the applicant. The decision of the first instance court became final and conclusive by the same method, and it

Therefore, the respondent's assertion on this part is not accepted.

3) As to the assertion of discretionary reduction

Article 6(1) of the Rules on Attorney’s Fees provides that a court may reduce the full amount of attorney’s fees to a considerable extent in cases where it is deemed that it would be remarkably unfair to include the whole amount of attorney’s fees in the litigation cost. Here, “any case” refers to cases where the recognition of the total amount calculated under Articles 3 and 5 of the Rules on Attorney’s Fees as the litigation cost and orders the other party to reimburse the other party would go against the principle of fairness or equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Ma1270, Apr. 26, 2007; 2010Ma658, Jul. 13, 2010).

However, in the instant case, in light of the overall circumstances, such as the scale of attorney fees calculated in accordance with the Rules on Attorney Fees, the progress and period of the lawsuit, nature and difficulty of the case, degree of efforts by the attorney, etc., it is difficult to deem that the grounds alleged by the respondent alone recognize the entire amount of attorney fees calculated as litigation costs and order the respondent to pay them to the respondent would go against the principles of fairness and equity. There is no reason to reduce the above attorney fees

Therefore, the respondent's assertion on this part is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the respondent's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Of the respondent and others, the principal of the remaining plaintiffs' claims except for the respondent are as follows. Nonparty 178,750,00 won, Nonparty 292,40,000 won, Nonparty 392,40,000 won, Nonparty 412,850,000 won, Nonparty 5150,150,000 won, Nonparty 6187,479,600 won, Nonparty 7126,971,880 won, and Nonparty 812,350,000 won, Nonparty 912,610,000 won, Nonparty 173,320,000 won, and Nonparty 12,610,610,000 won, Nonparty 173,320,000 won.