[1] The method of calculating the attorney’s fees to be included in the litigation costs in a case where a separate lawsuit in which the same attorney was appointed as the attorney was joined (=a total after individual calculation)

[2] The meaning of "judge" under Article 4 (5), (6) 3, and 5, etc. of the Rules on Judicial Assistants concerning cases of final determination of the amount of litigation costs (=the court of first instance)

[3] The case holding that a disposition by a judicial assistant officer against a request for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs in a civil agreement case is an violation of exclusive jurisdiction where a single judge, other than a collegiate panel, has been authorized

[1] In a case where several co-litigants jointly appoint a lawyer and let him/her file a lawsuit, the amount of attorney's fees to be included in the litigation costs shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the former Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs based on the total sum of the value of each subject matter of lawsuit of the co-litigants who have appointed the same lawyer to the total sum of all the value of each subject matter of lawsuit of the co-litigants who have appointed the same lawyer. However, if the parties separately appointed a lawyer in a multiple lawsuit conducted separately, and later become co-litigants by the court's consolidated decision of pleading, even if the appointed lawyer is the same person, it is reasonable to add them to each co-litigants after calculating the amount of attorney's fees under Article 3 of the former Rules according to the value of each subject matter of lawsuit of lawsuit.

[2] The determination of determination of the amount of litigation costs under Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is made by the first instance court. It is reasonable to see that, in light of the nature of the determination of the amount of litigation costs, the court of the lawsuit falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the lawsuit, the provisions concerning exclusive jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act cannot be deemed to have been amended by the rules of judicial assistant rules, and that the "judge" under the rules of judicial assistant rules does not always mean a single judge only, it is reasonable to see that the "judge" under Article 4(5), 4(6)3, and 5 of the Rules of Judicial Assistant Officers is the "court of the court of the first instance."

[3] The case holding that a single judge's disposition against a petition for confirmation of the amount of litigation costs regarding a civil agreement case rendered by a collegiate panel of a district court is an exclusive violation of the exclusive jurisdiction where a single judge, other than the collegiate panel of a district court, which is the court of the lawsuit

[1] Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the former Rules on Inclusion of Costs of Litigation for Attorney Fees (amended by Supreme Court Rule 2116 of November 28, 2007) / [2] Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 54 of the Court Organization Act, Article 2(1)1 and Article 4 of the Rules of Judicial Assistants / [3] Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 54 of the Court Organization Act, Article 2(1)1 and Article 4 of the Rules of Judicial Assistants

[1] Supreme Court en banc Order 2000Ma5563 Decided November 30, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 153)

Appellant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Stock Exchange Corporation

Busan District Court Order 2007Ra66 dated May 2, 2007

The order of the court below shall be reversed and the decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The case shall be transferred to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law and let him file a lawsuit, the amount of attorney's fees to be included in the litigation costs shall be calculated by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the former Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs (amended by Supreme Court Rules No. 2116 of Nov. 28, 2007; hereinafter "former Rules") based on the total sum of all the costs of each lawsuit by the co-litigants who appointed the same attorney-at-law as the litigation costs (see Supreme Court en banc Order 2000Ma563 of Nov. 30, 200). However, unlike this, in multiple lawsuits conducted separately, if the parties separately appoint an attorney-at-law as the attorney-at-law and later become co-litigants by the court's consolidated argument, even if the appointed person is the same person, it shall be reasonable to add them after calculating the amount of attorney's fees under Article 3 of the former Rules according to the amount of each lawsuit.

According to the records, the other party brought a lawsuit against the re-appellant 1 for the claim of damages due to delay in the return of lease deposit (the Busan District Court 2005Gahap12738), and apart from this, brought a lawsuit for the claim of revocation of fraudulent act against the re-appellant 2 for the claim of revocation of the above damage claim (the Busan District Court 2005Gahap16464), and the re-appellant appointed the legal representative for the legal representative and brought a lawsuit against the re-appellant 2 for the claim of revocation of the above damage claim (the Busan District Court 2005Gahap16464). While the lawsuit is pending in the merits after the two main case was joined by the court's decision and the subsequent co-litigation did not have any damage claim against the other party 1, the court of first instance rejected all of the claims against the re-appellant, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, the amount of attorney's fees to be included in the litigation expenses shall be added to each co-litigant under Article 3 of the former Rules in accordance with the legal principles.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the decision of the court of first instance (which seems to have an error of calculation in the decision of the court of first instance) that calculated the attorney's fees by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the former Rules based on the total sum of the value of each subject matter of lawsuit of the re-appellants. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the inclusion of the attorney's fees in litigation costs, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for reappeal pointing

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002 and enforced from July 1, 2002) provides that "in case where the amount of the litigation costs is not determined in a judgment that sets the burden of the litigation costs, the first instance court shall determine the amount of the litigation costs by decision at the request of the parties after the judgment becomes final or after the judgment on the burden of the litigation costs has been executed, or after the judgment on the burden of the litigation costs has been executed." Thus, "the first instance court" in the above period refers to the court of the lawsuit, which belongs to an exclusive jurisdiction, due to its nature as

Meanwhile, Article 54 of the Court Organization Act which was amended by Act No. 7402 on March 24, 2005 and enforced on July 1, 2005 may have judicial assistant officers to the Supreme Court and the courts of each level (paragraph (1)), and Article 54 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the duties prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations among the duties of the court in the determination procedure of litigation costs under the Civil Procedure Act may be performed by judicial assistant officers (paragraph (2)), and that the judicial assistant officers may file an objection against the judge under the conditions as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations (Paragraph (3). Accordingly, Article 1939 of the Supreme Court Rules enacted on June 3, 2005 and enforced on July 1, 2005 shall be deemed to apply mutatis mutandis to cases where the provisions of Articles 110 through 115 of the Civil Procedure Act are applied mutatis mutandis, or where the objection is deemed to have been filed by the judicial assistant officers as one of the duties of the court assistant in the determination procedure (Article 2(1)4) of this case).

However, as seen earlier, the determination of the amount of litigation costs under Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is made by the first instance court, which is in its nature belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of the lawsuit, and the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act cannot be deemed to have been amended by the rules on judicial assistant officers, and as known in Article 4(1) of the Rules on Judicial Assistant Officers, it is reasonable to deem that the “judge” under Article 4(5), (6)3, and (5) of the Rules on Judicial Assistant Officers, etc., refers to the “court of the first instance” in relation to the case of the determination of the amount of litigation costs, in consideration of the fact that the “judge” under the above rules does not always mean a single judge.

According to the records, it can be known that the decision to determine the amount of litigation costs of this case is related to the case on the merits which was decided by the Busan District Court Panel Division as the court of lawsuit. Accordingly, in accordance with the above legal principles, the decision whether to approve the disposition of the judicial assistant on the claim to determine the amount of litigation costs of this case should have been made by the Busan District Court Panel Division

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is reasonable for Busan District Court single judge, who is not the court of the principal case, to authorize the disposition of the judicial assistant to determine the amount of litigation costs, and thus dismissed the appeal by the re-appellant. The order of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of exclusive jurisdiction. In this regard, the court below's order cannot be maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be transferred to the Busan District Court Panel Division, which is the competent court of first instance, for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)