[1] The meaning of "any case which is remarkably unfair" as a ground for discretionary reduction of attorney's fees under Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs in Attorney Fees

[2] Whether reduction is unlawful in a specific case where there are some improper points in the process of reducing the attorney's fees pursuant to Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs in a Specific Cases

[1] Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs in Attorney Fees / [2] Article 6 of the Rules on the Inclusion of Litigation Costs in Attorney Fees

New Bank Co., Ltd.

Dongyang Integrated Financial Securities Corporation

Seoul High Court Order 2005Kaga867 dated November 25, 2005

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The first ground for reappeal

The lower court, on its grounds of its determination, stated only Articles 3(1) and 6 of the Regulations on Calculation of Litigation Costs (hereinafter “Rules on Remuneration”) and did not indicate Article 5, and applied Article 5 of the former Rules on Remuneration (amended by Supreme Court Regulation No. 1829, Jun. 9, 2003) before the amendment, in the event of a reduction, the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid shall be KRW 10,237,616, which is one half of the amount calculated according to the standards under Article 3 of the Rules on Remuneration. Thus, in the event that the lower court reduces the amount by applying Article 6(1) of the Rules on Remuneration, it is reasonable to view that the lower court’s order to pay the entire amount of the attorney’s fees to be paid is unreasonable in light of the fact that the amount calculated by applying Article 3 of the Rules on Remuneration is clearly the same as the amount of the attorney’s fees actually paid, excluding the amount of the contingent fees paid.

Therefore, this part of the grounds for reappeal, based on the premise that the court below erred in applying Article 5 of the above Rules before the above amendment, is without merit with regard to the amendment of the Rules of Remuneration.

2. The second ground for reappeal

In light of the overall circumstances, such as the value of subject-matter of lawsuit, the amount of remuneration calculated under Articles 3 and 5 of the Rules on Remuneration, the progress and period of lawsuit, the reasons for the closure of lawsuit, the nature and difficulty of the case, and the degree of efforts by an attorney-at-law, etc., it is reasonable to interpret the Rules on Remuneration as “where it is deemed that the whole calculated amount under Articles 3 and 5 of the Rules on Remuneration is a litigation cost and the order for repayment to the other party would result in a result contrary to the principle of fairness or equity.”

However, in a specific case, the issue of whether to grant reduction under Article 6 and the degree of reduction are, in principle, a matter of the nature of the appropriate decision in consideration of the overall circumstances mentioned above by the court, and even if there are some improper points in the process, it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it is extremely unreasonable to grant the reduction or the degree of reduction.

Examining the reasoning of the order of the court below in light of the above legal principles, the order of the court below that reduced the amount to be included in the litigation cost at its discretion as above cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that it is remarkably unfair to recognize the amount of remuneration calculated according to the standard under Article 3 of the Rules of Remuneration as the litigation cost in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 6 of the Rules of Remuneration as asserted in the grounds for

Therefore, this part of the grounds for reappeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)