[1] In order to exercise the right to file an application for security under Article 107 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, whether a national of the Republic of Korea or a national of the Republic of Korea must have an address, office or business

[2] In a case where the plaintiff won a favorable judgment in the first instance court or the appellate court, whether the plaintiff is exempted from the obligation to provide security under Article 107 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative) and the method of calculating the amount

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when the plaintiff has no address, office, or place of business in the Republic of Korea, the court shall order the plaintiff to provide a security for the costs of lawsuit at the defendant's request, and does not limit the defendant's qualification, and the purport of allowing the plaintiff to provide a security for the costs of lawsuit is that even if the plaintiff lost the plaintiff as a result of the lawsuit, the plaintiff would protect the defendant by preventing the concern that the defendant would not be able to receive reimbursement based on the right to demand reimbursement of the costs of lawsuit if he did not have any address, office, or place of business in the Republic of Korea.

[2] The amount of security to be provided to the Plaintiff is determined by the court at its discretion on the basis of the total amount of litigation costs to be paid by the Defendant to each instance in the pertinent case. Even if the Plaintiff won in the first instance or the appellate court, it cannot be exempted from the obligation to provide security under Article 107 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court may determine the amount of security at its discretion on the basis of the total amount of litigation costs anticipated to be ordinarily disbursed for the specific lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff at each instance, considering not only the first instance but also the appellate court

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 96Ma299 dated May 9, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1787)

Bable Llos Stockholm Blux Oblbll lefrmotop fluort (Law Firm, Law Firm International Law Office, Attorney United States-based, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

United Kingdom of Sclretain Ltidi

Busan High Court Order 98Ra86 dated January 20, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 107(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when the plaintiff has no address, office, or place of business in the Republic of Korea, the court shall order the plaintiff to provide a security for the costs of lawsuit at the defendant's request, and does not limit the defendant's qualification. The purport of the plaintiff to provide a security for the costs of lawsuit is that the plaintiff should bear the costs of lawsuit as a result of the lawsuit against the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff did not have any address, office, or place of business in the Republic of Korea, the defendant is likely to not be able to receive reimbursement based on the right to demand reimbursement of the costs of lawsuit, and thereby protecting the defendant by preventing such concern as a security.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles against the principle of fairness and equity, as alleged in the grounds of reappeal.

The grounds for reappeal as to this point are rejected.

2. On the second ground for appeal

The amount of security to be provided to the Plaintiff shall be determined by the court at its discretion on the basis of the total sum of the costs of lawsuit to be paid by the Defendant to each instance in the case, and even if the Plaintiff won in the first instance court or the appellate court, the obligation to provide security pursuant to Article 107 of the Civil Procedure

Therefore, considering not only the first instance court but also the appellate court and the final appeal court, the court may determine the amount of security in its discretion on the basis of the total amount of the litigation cost anticipated to be normally disbursed for the specific lawsuit filed by the plaintiff in each instance.

In accordance with the above legal principle, the court below's decision that the court below can determine the amount of security including the attorney's fees in each instance and the litigation costs to be normally paid by the defendant, is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the amount of security.

The grounds for reappeal of this point are rejected.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)