[1] In a case where only a part of multiple co-litigants have applied for the determination of the amount of litigation costs, or where multiple co-litigants have applied for the determination of the amount of litigation costs, the method of determining

[2] In a case where multiple co-litigants jointly appointed an attorney-at-law and let him/her conduct a lawsuit, the method of calculating the attorney's fees to be paid by each co-litigants / In a case where there is a overlapping relationship between co-litigants who appointed a joint attorney-at-law, the standard of calculating the value of the object of the lawsuit, which is the basis for calculating the total attorney's fees, and whether

[1] Article 110 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs for Attorney Fees

[1] Supreme Court Order 2008Ma534 dated June 26, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1070) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Order 2000Ma5563 dated November 30, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 153) Supreme Court Order 200Ma7028 dated August 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2151)

Applicant 1 and 3 others

Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hun-Ba, Attorneys Southern-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2016Ra1480 decided October 14, 2016

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined ex officio prior to judgment.

1. Where part of the co-litigants have applied for the determination of the amount of litigation costs on the premise that all the co-litigants have applied, the determination of the amount of litigation costs shall be made only with respect to the amount which can be repaid by the relevant requester, and where the relevant requester has applied for the determination of the amount of litigation costs against some of the co-litigants, the determination of the final determination shall be made only with respect to the amount which should be borne by the relevant respondent, after calculating the amount of litigation costs on the premise that all the co-litigants have applied for the determination against all the co-litigants

Meanwhile, in a case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law (hereinafter “joint attorney-at-law”) and let them file a lawsuit, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that the co-litigation is a co-litigation only in the form of co-litigations to the extent of having little relevance to them to the extent that they are substantially co-litigants, the total attorney’s fees to be included in litigation costs shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs based on the total sum of the values of each co-litigants who appointed the joint attorney-at-law’s subject matter of lawsuit (hereinafter “Rules”), and each co-litigants’ fees to be paid shall be calculated (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 200Ma563, Nov. 30, 200). In a case where there exists any overlapping relationship between the co-litigants who appointed the joint attorney-at-law and the co-litigants, the total amount of the above attorney’s fees to be calculated shall not be calculated based only on the largest amount of the subject matter of lawsuit among each co-litigants.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. The respondent filed a lawsuit claiming a loan (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) against the applicant and the applicant, non-applicant 1, and non-applicant 2 (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”). The applicants appointed the limited liability law firm as the legal representative, and had the legal representative conduct the instant lawsuit. Non-applicant 1 appointed the law firm △△△ and non-applicant 2 as the legal representative, respectively, and appointed the law firm △△△△ and carried out the instant lawsuit.

B. The first instance court accepted only a claim against the respondent's promotion committee and dismissed all the rest of the claims against the defendants, and sentenced the promotion committee to bear the part arising between the respondent and the applicant, the non-applicant, the non-applicant 1, and the non-applicant 2. The respondent appealed against the above judgment and appealed against the petitioner, the non-applicant 1, and the non-applicant 2. The appellate court dismissed the respondent's appeal and sentenced the respondent to bear the costs of appeal. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. Only the applicants filed an application for determination of the amount of the instant litigation cost, and the lower court determined the amount of the litigation cost to be borne by the respondent by calculating the value of the subject matter of the lawsuit and the attorney fees according thereto only for the applicants among several co-defendants.

3. However, in such a case, in calculating the value of the subject-matter of the lawsuit against the multiple co-defendants, including the applicants, and the attorney’s fees therefrom, the applicants should be calculated, and the Respondent’s amount of the litigation costs should be determined accordingly. Nevertheless, the lower court, which did not comply with such a method, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the amount of the litigation costs where only a part of the co-litigants is requested to determine the amount of the litigation costs, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of reappeal, the order of the court below is reversed ex officio and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)