[1] In case where multiple co-litigants lose, the method of calculating the attorney's fees to be included in the litigation costs to be borne by one of them to the other party

[2] The method of sharing the costs of lawsuit by co-litigants in the case where the court order set the ratio of the costs of lawsuit by co-litigants, or simply ordering the co-litigants to bear the costs of lawsuit without ordering the co-litigants to bear the costs of lawsuit.

[1] In a case where multiple co-litigants lose, the attorney’s fees to be included in the litigation costs to be borne by one of them to the other party who won the lawsuit are not calculated on the basis of the value of the lawsuit related to the other party. The attorney’s fees to be borne by the co-litigants are calculated on the basis of the value of the whole litigation costs to be jointly borne by the co-litigants, and the share to be borne by one of the co-litigants

[2] Article 93(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may jointly and severally bear the costs of lawsuit or bear them by any other means, depending on circumstances." Thus, if the court decides in the text of the judgment that the co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit by the co-litigants, or that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the co-litigants without ordering the co-litigants to do so, the co-litigants shall bear equally the costs of lawsuit against the other party, and even if the co-litigants have internally

[1] Article 99-2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs for Attorney Fees / [2] Article 93(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Order 92Du62 dated December 28, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 633)

Re-appellant

Fewal spawal spawal

Seoul High Court Order 2000Ra330 dated February 28, 2001

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

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the records, the plaintiff and 11 of the re-appellants (the plaintiff and 11 of the re-appellants) won 97 Gohap 4688 of the Seoul District Court (the plaintiff and 11 of the non-appellants). The judgment of the court of the first instance became final and conclusive as all appeals were dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance are 11 of the non-appellants. The judgment of the court of first instance determined that the costs of the lawsuit in this case should be borne by the plaintiff 6,891,988 won. The court of first instance decided 400 won for the plaintiff's appeal of the non-appellant 200 won (the total value of the lawsuit in this case is 92,58,691 and 400 won x 460 won x 506 won x 4850 won x 560 won x 4650 won - 50

2. The attorney's fees included in the litigation costs to be borne by the re-appellant among the attorney's fees paid by the re-appellant in the first instance court when the applicant individually appointed the attorney-at-law are not calculated on the basis of the value of the lawsuit related to the re-appellant, and the attorney's fees to be included in the litigation costs jointly borne by the non-appellant et al. and the 11 of the first instance court based on the value of the entire lawsuit costs, and the share to be borne by the re-appellant shall be determined

On the other hand, Article 93(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may jointly or separately bear the costs of lawsuit according to circumstances." Thus, if the judgment order provides that the co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit for each co-litigants, or that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants without issuing a joint and several liability, the co-litigants shall bear equally the costs of lawsuit against the other party, and even if there are internal problems between the co-litigants, they shall be resolved by agreement among them and the substantive law. As seen earlier, the judgment of the first instance determined that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the re-appellant, the Defendants of the case, and the re-appellant shall bear only 1/12 of the costs of lawsuit for the first instance.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of attorney's fees included in the litigation costs among the attorney's fees paid by the applicant and charged them to the whole re-appellant, and in the whole value of the lawsuit among the whole stamp, the court below committed an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of the attorney's fees included in the litigation costs and the burden of litigation costs by the co-litigants.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be 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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)