Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
How appeal costs are borne where both parties' appeals are dismissed but the scopes of dissatisfaction differ significantly
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Apr. 3, 2019, 2018Da271657 (judgment)
Case name: 약정금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where both parties appeal a judgment granting the plaintiff's claim in part and both appeals are dismissed, must the appeal costs be borne by each party even though there is a significant difference in the scope of dissatisfaction?
Holding
An objection to a ruling on litigation costs is permitted only where the appeal on the merits is well-founded, and the scope of the reimbursement obligation cannot be altered in the procedure for determining the amount of costs; accordingly, the court must set the matter in the costs ruling from the outset so that no unreasonableness arises. The Supreme Court takes the view that, where there is a significant difference in the scope of dissatisfaction, it is desirable, instead of simply having each party bear its own costs, to have each party bear the appeal costs attributable to that party's dissatisfaction, or to apportion the costs in proportion to the scope of dissatisfaction, and it determined the costs of the final appeal in this case accordingly.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
각 당사자의 불복으로 인한 부분의 상소비용을 불복한 당사자가 각각 부담하도록 하거나, 쌍방의 상소비용을 합하여 이를 불복범위의 비율로 적절히 안분시키는 형태로 주문을 냄으로써
Unofficial English translation
by issuing the order in the form of having the dissatisfied party bear the appeal costs for the portion arising from each party's dissatisfaction, or of combining the appeal costs of both parties and appropriately apportioning them in proportion to the scope of dissatisfaction,
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
각 당사자의 불복범위에 현저한 차이가 있어 쌍방 상소 기각과 함께 상소비용을 각자 부담으로 하게 되면
Unofficial English translation
where there is a marked difference in the scope of each party's dissatisfaction, so that if both appeals were dismissed and each party were to bear its own appeal costs,
Factors
- 소송비용의 패소자부담 등 민사소송법이 정한 원칙
- 소송의 형태와 경과, 상소심인 경우 불복범위 등 제반 사정
- 각 당사자가 불복의 대상으로 삼은 범위에 현저한 차이가 있어
- 단지 쌍방이 상소하여 모두의 상소가 기각되었다는 우연한 사정
Unofficial English translation
• The principles provided by the Civil Procedure Act, such as that the losing party bears the litigation costs
• the form and course of the lawsuit, and, in the case of an appellate court, the scope of dissatisfaction and all other circumstances
• there is a marked difference in the range that each party has taken as the subject of its dissatisfaction, and
• the fortuitous circumstance that both parties merely appealed and all appeals were dismissed
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
법원으로서는 당해 심급의 소송비용부담재판을 함에 있어 단지 각자 부담으로 할 것이 아니라
Unofficial English translation
the court, when making the ruling on the burden of litigation costs at the relevant instance, should not merely have each party bear its own costs but
Decisions referred to
대법원 1991. 9. 24.자 91마277 결정, 대법원 1996. 1. 23. 선고 95다38233 판결(공1996상, 663), 대법원 2017. 11. 21.자 2016마1854 결정(공2018상, 1)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
To what degree must a difference in the scope of dissatisfaction reach before it constitutes a 'significant difference' such that requiring each party to bear its own costs is unreasonable?
This reading will be re-examined if the provisions on the bearing of litigation costs in Articles 98 through 100 of the Civil Procedure Act, or the legal principle limiting objections to rulings on litigation costs, are changed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
In comparison with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on axis 4 (Form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text sets out the marked difference in the scope of dissatisfaction and the unreasonable result as conditions, while also requiring consideration of the circumstances, the primary reading may focus on Elements stated, while the independent reading may focus on Circumstances weighed.
소송비용의 패소자부담 등 민사소송법이 정한 원칙과 함께 소송의 형태와 경과, 상소심인 경우 불복범위 등 제반 사정을 고려하여Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below rejected the plaintiff's contention regarding the agreement to pay a settlement amount of 700 million won, and granted in part the claim for the agreed amount as consideration for medical treatment. The plaintiff claimed 527,676,460 won and interest for delay, of which 24,553,808 won and interest for delay were granted, while the remaining 503,122,652 won and interest for delay were dismissed. The content of the court below's determination on the bearing of litigation costs cannot be confirmed from the reasons.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court did not accept either party's grounds for final appeal. However, it examined the ruling on the costs of the final appeal ex officio and, finding that there was a significant difference between the plaintiff's and the defendant's scopes of dissatisfaction in the final appeal stage and that having each party bear its own costs would be unreasonable, it determined that the plaintiff shall bear the portion of the costs of the final appeal attributable to the plaintiff's final appeal, and the defendant shall bear the portion attributable to the defendant's final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the parties' scopes of dissatisfaction are similar and no substantive unreasonableness arises even if each bears its own costs
- Where only one party appealed, or where a part of the appeal is well-founded and costs are determined under the principle that the losing party bears them
- Where an attempt is made to alter the scope of the reimbursement obligation under an already final ruling on the bearing of litigation costs in the procedure for a determination of the amount of litigation costs
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check the amounts to which each party objected and their respective proportions, as well as whether any part of the appeal on the merits is well-founded.
From the official text
Points at issue
원고의 청구를 일부 인용한 판결에 대해 쌍방이 각 패소 부분에 상소한 사건에서 각 당사자의 불복범위에 현저한 차이가 있어 쌍방 상소 기각과 함께 상소비용을 각자 부담으로 하게 되면 불합리한 결과가 발생한다고 인정되는 경우, 법원이 당해 심급의 소송비용부담재판을 하면서 취하여야 할 조치
Unofficial English translation
In a case in which both parties appealed the portions in which they lost, from a judgment that granted in part the plaintiff's claim, where there is a marked difference in the scope of each party's dissatisfaction, and where it is recognized that an unreasonable result would arise if, upon dismissal of both appeals, each party were to bear its own appeal costs, the measures that the court should take when making the ruling on the burden of litigation costs at the relevant instance
Summary of the holding
소송비용의 재판에 대한 불복은 본안의 재판에 대한 상소의 전부 또는 일부가 이유 있는 경우에 한하여 허용되고, 본안의 상소가 이유가 없는 경우에는 허용되지 아니하며, 소송비용액확정결정절차에서는 상환할 소송비용의 액수를 정할 수 있을 뿐이고 소송비용부담재판에서 확정한 상환의무 자체의 범위를 심리·판단하거나 변경할 수 없다. 따라서 법원이 사건을 완결하는 재판을 하면서 소송비용에 관한 재판을 함에 있어서는, 소송비용의 패소자부담 등 민사소송법이 정한 원칙과 함께 소송의 형태와 경과, 상소심인 경우 불복범위 등 제반 사정을 고려하여, 당사자 간에 실질적인 불합리와 불평등이 없도록 신중하게 그 부담을 정할 필요가 있다. 현행 실무상 원고의 청구를 일부 인용한 판결에 대해 쌍방이 각 패소 부분에 상소한 사건(이하 ‘쌍방상소사건’이라고 한다)에서, 상소심이 쌍방의 상소를 모두 기각하는 경우 당해 심급의 소송비용부담재판을 함에 있어서는 거의 예외 없이 상소인 각자가 부담하도록 하고 있고, 이 경우 원고와 피고는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 각 지출한 비용을 자기가 부담하고 상대방에게 상환청구를 할 수 없다고 해석된다. 그런데 쌍방상소사건에서 상소가 모두 기각되었더라도 각 당사자가 불복의 대상으로 삼은 범위에 현저한 차이가 있어 실질적으로는 더 적은 범위에 대해 불복한 당사자가 승소한 범위가 훨씬 큰 경우에도 상소비용을 각자가 부담하도록 하게 되면, 불복범위가 더 적은 상소인의 입장에서는 단지 쌍방이 상소하여 모두의 상소가 기각되었다는 우연한 사정에 의해 그가 상소하지 않았을 때와 비교하여 소송비용의 부담과 상환에 있어 부당하게 불리한 결과가 발생하게 된다. 따라서 쌍방상소사건에서 각 당사자의 불복범위에 현저한 차이가 있어 쌍방 상소 기각과 함께 상소비용을 각자 부담으로 하게 되면 위와 같은 불합리한 결과가 발생한다고 인정되는 경우, 법원으로서는 당해 심급의 소송비용부담재판을 함에 있어 단지 각자 부담으로 할 것이 아니라, 각 당사자의 불복으로 인한 부분의 상소비용을 불복한 당사자가 각각 부담하도록 하거나, 쌍방의 상소비용을 합하여 이를 불복범위의 비율로 적절히 안분시키는 형태로 주문을 냄으로써, 위와 같은 불합리한 결과가 발생하지 않도록 하는 것이 바람직하다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고의 상고로 인한 부분은 원고가, 피고의 상고로 인한 부분은 피고가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. Of the appeal costs, the portion arising from the plaintiff's final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the portion arising from the defendant's final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제98조, 제99조, 제100조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger