In case where several co-litigants jointly appoint a lawyer and have him conduct the lawsuit, the method of calculating the attorney's remuneration paid or to be paid by such co-litigants in the litigation costs.

In a case where several co-litigants jointly appoint an attorney-at-law and let them file a lawsuit, barring special circumstances (e.g., the fact that the co-litigants are related to the co-litigants in form only to the extent that they are substantially different from that of an independent lawsuit) in calculating the attorney-at-law fees paid or to be paid by such co-litigants in the litigation costs, it is reasonable to calculate the attorney-at-law fees by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the Rules on the Calculation of Litigation Costs to the total amount of each of the co-litigants who appointed the same attorney-at-law by applying the ratio under Article 3 of the said Rules, based on the total amount of each of the co-litigants

Article 99-2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs for Attorney Fees

Supreme Court Order 92Ma369 Dated December 14, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 538) (amended) Supreme Court Order 99Ma875 Dated April 13, 1999 (Gong199Ha, 1232)(amended)(amended)

The Incheon Metropolitan City Federation

Gu-Eup fishing village fraternity and 21 others (Attorneys Lee Hong-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2000Ra255 dated July 25, 2000

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

1. Article 3(1) of the Regulations on the Calculation of Litigation Costs under Article 99-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") provides that "the remuneration of an attorney to be included in the litigation costs shall be calculated according to the standards set forth in the attached Table according to the unit value of each instance, which is within the scope of remuneration paid by the parties under the contract for remuneration or to be paid by them." The attached Table provides that the calculation ratio of attorney's remuneration to be included in the litigation costs is less than the amount so low. The calculation ratio of attorney's remuneration to be calculated in the same way as above shall be calculated according to the 3rd method, and that the amount of such fees shall be calculated according to the 9th method, unless there are overlapping relations or absorption between the two or more co-litigants, and that the amount of fees of an attorney paid or to be paid by the same person for each of the above co-litigants shall be calculated by calculating the total amount of fees of an attorney-litigants under Article 97 of the Rules that are not related to each of the aforementioned co-litigants.

2. According to the records, the applicant in this case filed a lawsuit against the respondent as joint plaintiff and Respondent as Seoul District Court Branch 94Gahap20908, the Seoul District Court 95Na31975 case and the Supreme Court 96Da3982 case, which was the appellate court's appellate court's appellate decision, and the appellate court's appellate court's appellate decision, 97Na57698 case on June 24, 1998, which was the appellate court's appellate court's remand case's remand fishing village fraternity, large fishing village fraternity, and large fishing village fraternity among the applicants, and the rest of the applicants were decided as they were upon a decision of winning all the costs of the lawsuit. The above judgment is with respect to the costs of the lawsuit between the applicants in this case and the respondent in this case, and the remaining applicants and the respondent bear all the costs of the lawsuit between the applicants in this case and the respondent, and all of the applicants who appointed one attorney-at-law as joint attorney-law's attorney's amount paid from each instance.

Nevertheless, the order of the court below that maintained the decision of the first instance which is calculated by the method of adding up the amounts of attorney fees of the applicants who are to be included in the litigation costs based on the value of each of the applicants in the above cases, on the basis of the amount of litigation costs by each of the applicants in each of the above cases, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating the amount of litigation costs in case the co-litigants jointly appointed a lawyer

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) is based on the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice (Presiding Justice).