[1] The method of bearing litigation costs by the co-litigants in a case where the court order provided that "the litigation costs shall be borne by the co-litigants."

[2] In case where a co-litigant has lost at the same ratio in an ordinary co-litigation, whether it is necessary for the court to have the co-litigants bear litigation costs by other means by actively applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if the co-litigants are contrary to equity or unreasonable to jointly bear litigation costs

[1] Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The co-litigants shall equally bear the costs of lawsuit: Provided, That the court may jointly or severally charge the costs of lawsuit to the co-litigants, depending on circumstances, or may charge them by any other means.” Thus, if the court ordering the co-litigants to set the ratio of the costs of lawsuit by co-litigants, or to simply “the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the co-litigants,” without ordering the co-litigants to jointly or severally bear the costs of lawsuit, the co-litigants shall bear equally the costs of lawsuit against the other party, and even if there are internal

[2] In the determination procedure of the amount of litigation costs, the scope of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit cannot be deliberated, determined or altered, and the scope of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit cannot be deliberated, determined or altered. Therefore, in order to prevent the occurrence of unreasonable results and to make the judgment of the cost of lawsuit that corresponds to equity and concrete feasibility among the co-litigants, in ordinary co-litigations where the co-litigants jointly lost at the same ratio, it is more desirable for the co-litigants to jointly bear the costs of lawsuit in the way of determining the costs of lawsuit by actively applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if it is contrary to equity or unreasonable to actively bear the costs of lawsuit due to the reason that there is a significant difference in the value of the object of lawsuit between the co-litigants or the content and nature of the subject matter of lawsuit

[1] Article 102 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 66 and 102 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 2001Ma1774 dated October 16, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2519)

Appellant 1 and 6 others

Seoul High Court Order 2016Ra1527 dated November 1, 2016

All reappeals are dismissed.

1. As to the ground for reappeal

Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may jointly or severally charge the costs of lawsuit to the co-litigants or may charge them by any other means, depending on the circumstances.” Thus, if the court order set the ratio of the costs of lawsuit by co-litigants, or provided that “the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the co-litigants,” without ordering the co-litigants to jointly or severally bear the costs of lawsuit, the co-litigants shall bear equally the costs of lawsuit to the other party, and even if there is any internal problem between the co-litigants, it shall be resolved by agreement among them and by substantive law (see Supreme Court Order 201Ma1774, Oct. 16,

In light of the records, in the case of this case where the respondent establishes the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the applicant according to the judgment of the court of first, second and third instances that the respondent et al. and ten or the respondent bear the costs of lawsuit after filing a lawsuit, the judgment of the court below that the respondent has to equally determine the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the applicant according to the judgment of the court of first, second and third instances that the respondent bears the costs of lawsuit, even if the value of the purpose of the lawsuit differs, the amount of litigation costs to be reimbursed to the applicant by the respondent is justifiable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there

2. As to the litigation cost-bearing trial practice in ordinary co-litigation

(a) In an ordinary co-litigation, one point shall be pointed out concerning the litigation cost-bearing trial practice in case where the co-litigants lose together at the same ratio; and

B. In a case of a co-litigation, Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The co-litigants shall bear the costs of lawsuit equally: Provided, That the court may, depending on circumstances, jointly or severally bear the costs of lawsuit, or may have the co-litigants bear them by any other means.” At present, a majority of the co-litigants, in a case where the co-litigants jointly lose in an ordinary co-litigation at the same ratio, are rendering a judgment on the cost of lawsuit that the co-litigants jointly bear the costs of lawsuit by applying the main text of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the same applies to the principal lawsuit of this case. However, in an ordinary co-litigation, it may be deemed that the co-litigants jointly bear the costs of lawsuit is contrary to equity or unreasonable for the co-litigants to jointly bear the costs of lawsuit on the grounds that there is a significant difference in the value of the subject matter of lawsuit between them, or the content or nature of the

C. The case is examined in light of the following reasoning: (a) convenience; (b) disease; (c) the 200 million won loan claim against (A); and (c) the 10 million won loan claim against (B) and the 10,000 won loan claim against (B); and (c) Byung becomes the plaintiff and won a joint defendant, and the case is examined in the case where there is a substantial difference between co-litigants in the value of the object

(1) In the above case, the majority of the business practices currently apply the main text of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, without distinguishing the litigation relations by the defendant, and instead rendering a judgment on the cost of lawsuit that “the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.” However, in applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may, depending on circumstances, have the co-litigants bear the costs of lawsuit in a different way. As such, in the above case, the court may render a judgment on the cost of lawsuit that “the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Gap out of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant Gap, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul out of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant

(2) Although a court in charge of a lawsuit may choose one of the methods examined in the above case at the time of a judgment on the cost of lawsuit, there is a substantial difference in the amount of litigation cost to be borne by A and B depending on which method is selected. However, in the case of ordinary co-litigation under Article 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances in accordance with the principle of the independence of co-litigants, matters concerning one of the co-litigants are not affected by other co-litigants, and each co-litigants is in the status of a party only in one of the co-litigants and the other party is established separately from each of the co-litigants in the above case, and when a judgment on the cost of lawsuit is rendered by applying the main text of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act automatically in the above case, it would result in an unreasonable consequence that Eul, as a co-litigants, was affected by his litigation cost by a sudden reason that Eul filed a lawsuit with Eul as a co-defendant, and in reality, it would also result in an additional burden of litigation cost to be borne by Gap.

D. In determining the amount of litigation costs, it is only possible to determine the amount of litigation costs to be repaid, and the scope of the obligation to reimburse determined by the judgment on the burden of litigation costs cannot be deliberated, determined, or altered. Therefore, in order to prevent the occurrence of unreasonable outcomes and to make the judgment on the burden of litigation costs consistent with equity and concrete feasibility among the co-litigants, in the ordinary co-litigants lose together in the same proportion, if the co-litigants lose together in the ordinary co-litigants, it is more desirable to judge the burden of litigation costs by way of determining the burden of litigation costs by actively applying the proviso of Article 102(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if it is contrary to equity or unreasonable for the co-litigants to jointly bear litigation costs due to the reason that there is a significant difference in the value of the object of lawsuit between them, or the content and nature of the subject matter of lawsuit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)