[1] In a case where, after a judgment on substantive relations with respect to the obligation to reimburse costs of lawsuit has become final and conclusive in a judgment on the merits which has res judicata effect, the court rendered a decision on the amount of costs of lawsuit according to the number of claims filed by the party who is the right of recourse, whether res judicata effect is recognized in a judgment on the costs of lawsuit (affirmative), and in a case where the purport that only a part of the claim is claimed is not clearly stated in the lawsuit

[2] The scope of res judicata effect of a final and conclusive litigation cost determination case (=the total litigation cost of the applicant)

[1] Article 110 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 110 and 203 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da33008 delivered on June 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2100) Supreme Court Order 200Ma5257 delivered on September 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2468)

Choman-M Co., Ltd.

Respondent

Seoul High Court Order 2009Ra1375 dated September 14, 2009

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. In a judgment on the merits in which res judicata has res judicata effect, where, after a judgment on the substantive relationship of the obligation to reimburse the costs of lawsuit has already become final and conclusive, the court rendered, based on such judgment, the determination on the costs of lawsuit is a final and conclusive judgment that specifically embodys the judgment on the substantive relationship of the costs of lawsuit in the judgment on the merits (see Supreme Court Order 2000Ma5257, Sept. 23, 2002). In addition, in a case where the court did not specify the purport that the remainder is reserved and only part of the claim is claimed while filing a lawsuit for demanding performance of part of the claim, the remaining part cannot be claimed later because the res judicata effect of the judgment is limited to the remaining remaining part (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da3008, Jun. 25, 1993).

On the other hand, since the procedure for determining the amount of litigation costs has a non-contentious nature in that it does not confirm the existence of rights and obligations, the principle of disposition authority (Article 203 of the Civil Procedure Act) does not apply to each item of expense or amount of expense, and the court may delete or reduce the unfair cost items within the scope of the total amount requested by the parties, add legitimate cost items, or increase the amount more than the amount of items claimed by the parties. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the res judicata effect of the already determined amount of litigation costs does not affect the individual cost items and amount, but it extends

2. After finding facts as indicated in its reasoning concerning the developments leading up to the instant application, the lower court determined that it is not allowed to additionally apply for the determination of litigation costs in relation to the instant appraisal costs, since the res judicata effect of the final decision on the amount of litigation costs is limited to the appraisal costs of the instant case where the final decision on the amount of litigation costs was omitted in the previous application, the applicant filed a claim for the determination of the amount of litigation costs in the previous application, and did not specify that the remainder would be reserved and only part of the attorney fees would be claimed.

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to res judicata or partial claims as alleged in the grounds of reappeal.

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)