A. Whether the scope of the right to indemnity includes attorney-at-law fees in a lawsuit filed by one joint tortfeasor

B. In a case where only one joint tortfeasor is brought a lawsuit, and the other joint tortfeasor has participated in the lawsuit, whether one of the joint tortfeasor is entitled to claim the litigation costs for the response to another person

A. One of the joint tortfeasors may claim the amount of money recognized in the judgment against the victim as compensation for damages, provided that the other joint tortfeasor has been jointly indemnified by paying the amount of money recognized in the judgment as a claim for damages, barring special circumstances such as the unfair response, the amount of money jointly exempted as well as the amount equivalent to the ratio of the fault of the other joint tortfeasors, and legal interest after the date of joint immunity, and other expenses that cannot be avoided may be claimed for damages. Such expenses are included in the litigation cost spent in the course of the lawsuit by the joint tortfeasor. Among the attorney fees paid by the joint tortfeasors, the amount of money recognized as reasonable by reasonable judgment in consideration of various circumstances such as the standard for remuneration under the rules on the inclusion of the attorney's fees, the rules of the affiliated attorney's association, the value of the subject-matter of the lawsuit, the difficulty of the case, the process of the lawsuit, the result of the judgment, etc. can be claimed as the expenses and other damages.

B. Even if only one of the joint tortfeasors has instituted a lawsuit, if the other joint tortfeasor participated in the lawsuit as a supplementary intervenor, the costs of the lawsuit that the other joint tortfeasor has paid are to defend his/her rights, and cannot be considered as the costs for joint immunity, and the costs of the lawsuit that the intervenor and the supplementary intervenor bear are determined in the judgment of the lawsuit, it is not allowed to claim for reimbursement against the other joint tortfeasor.

Articles 425 and 760 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1423 others (Law No. 1979, 11608)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Dongyang Special Oil Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na14963 delivered on September 9, 1994

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding the claim for reimbursement of litigation costs, including attorney fees, shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff appointed an attorney-at-law as a legal representative for the non-party company and paid 14,407,300 won in total to the non-party company, including attorney-at-law fees, etc., and thus, the defendant, the joint tortfeasor, who is the joint tortfeasor, should pay the above amount equivalent to his/her share of negligence. In order to exercise the right to indemnity against the share of the other joint tortfeasor's fault, the plaintiff's claim, including attorney-at-law fees, should compensate the victim for actual damages and receive joint immunity. The above litigation costs of the non-party company's claim, including attorney-at-law fees, are not paid as compensation for damages incurred by the victims of the accident of this case in the confirmation of the claim for damages liability, and thus, they cannot be viewed as a joint exemption amount that can be claimed against the defendant.

2. However, in the event that one of the joint tortfeasors has actively disputed the claim for damages from the victim, but the other joint tortfeasor has been jointly indemnified by paying the amount recognized in the judgment as damages, barring special circumstances such as the wrongful response, the amount of the joint tortfeasor's liability amount as well as the amount equivalent to the ratio of the other joint tortfeasor's fault, and legal interest and other expenses that cannot be avoided after the date of joint immunity can be claimed for damages, barring special circumstances such as the illegal response, and other expenses that cannot be avoided in this context include the litigation expenses spent in the course of the lawsuit by the joint tortfeasor, among the expenses paid by the joint tortfeasor's liability, and the amount within the reasonable scope can be claimed as the expenses and other damages that can not be reasonably determined by reasonably taking into account the various circumstances such as the standard for remuneration under the rules on the inclusion of the attorney's fees, the rules of the affiliated attorney's meeting, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit, the difficulty of the case, the progress of the lawsuit, and

On the other hand, even if only one of the joint tortfeasors has instituted a lawsuit, if the other joint tortfeasor participated in the lawsuit as a supplementary intervenor, the costs of the lawsuit that the other joint tortfeasor has paid are to defend his/her rights, and cannot be considered as the costs for joint immunity, and in light of the fact that the litigation costs borne by the original party and the supplementary intervenor are determined in the judgment of the above lawsuit, it is not allowed to claim for reimbursement against the other joint tortfeasor.

According to the records, if one of the joint tortfeasors of this case is the non-party company, who is the policyholder of this case, was brought against the victim, and the defendant, the other joint tortfeasor, did not actively participate in the lawsuit after the response of the non-party company, it can be known that the defendant participated in the lawsuit after the response of the non-party company. Thus, the court below examined whether the defendant participated in the lawsuit after the response of the non-party company, and whether there are special circumstances to see that the response is an unfair response, and further decided the validity of the plaintiff's claim. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of the right to indemnity in the joint tort, and the arguments pointing this out are with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding the claim for reimbursement of the lawsuit cost, including attorney fees, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)