A false cost amount alone in a cost-determination application

1. 01Question

   Does an act of deceiving the court with false content and obtaining a cost-determination ruling favourable to oneself constitute fraud, where the applicant neither fabricates supporting materials nor submits false ones and merely claims a cost amount that differs from the facts?

2. 02Holding

   Yes, in principle. Because a ruling on bearing litigation costs only confirms the existence of the duty to repay and orders payment, while a specific sum is fixed by a cost-determination ruling under Article 110(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and can be enforced compulsorily, an act of deceiving the court with false content to obtain a favourable cost-determination ruling may constitute fraud. But the Court said care is required where an applicant merely claims a cost amount that differs from the facts: court costs such as stamps and deposits are computed from the court's own records, party costs paid to third parties must be substantiated by the applicant, so absent special circumstances it is hard to conclude that the court was deceived.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   소송비용의 상환을 구하는 자는 소송비용액확정결정에 집행문을 부여받아 그 확정된 소송비용액에 관하여 강제집행을 할 수 있는바, 허위 내용으로 법원을 기망하여 자기에게 유리한 소송비용액확정결정을 받는 행위는 사기죄를 구성할 수 있다.

   Unofficial English translation

   A person seeking reimbursement of litigation costs may be granted an execution clause for the decision on determination of litigation costs and may carry out compulsory execution with respect to the determined amount of litigation costs; an act of deceiving the court with false content to obtain a decision on determination of litigation costs favorable to oneself may constitute the offense of fraud.

3. 03Disposition

   Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

   원심판결 중 피고인 1에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울북부지방법원에 환송한다. 피고인 2의 상고를 기각한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 1 is reversed, and the case in this portion is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court. The final appeal of Defendant 2 is dismissed.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   당사자가 단순히 실제 사실과 다른 비용액에 관한 주장만 한 경우를 사기죄로 인정하는 것에는 신중하여야 한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   One must be cautious in recognizing the offense of fraud where a party has merely asserted a cost amount different from the actual facts.

5. 05Factors

   • 소송비용상환의무의 존재를 확정하고 그 지급을 명하는 데 그치고
   • 인지액 및 민사예납금 등 이른바 ‘재판비용’은 관할법원이 스스로 보존하고 있는 재판서 및 소송기록 등에 의하여 계산할 것이 예정되어 있고
   • 당사자가 소송 등 수행을 위하여 제3자에게 직접 지출하는 이른바 ‘당사자비용’은 신청인이 반드시 소명하여야 하므로
   • 소명자료 등을 조작하거나 허위의 소명자료 등을 제출함이 없이 단지 실제 사실과 다른 비용액에 관한 주장만 하는 경우에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 법원을 기망하였다고 단정하기 어렵기 때문이다.

   Unofficial English translation

   • stops at confirming the existence of the obligation to reimburse litigation costs and ordering payment thereof, and

   • the so-called 'court costs,' such as revenue stamp amounts and civil case deposits, are intended to be calculated on the basis of the court records and litigation records, etc. that the court with jurisdiction itself preserves, and

   • the so-called 'party costs,' which a party directly incurs to a third party in order to conduct the lawsuit, etc., must necessarily be substantiated by the applicant, and

   • because, where a party does not fabricate evidentiary materials or submit false evidentiary materials but merely asserts a cost amount different from the actual facts, it is difficult to conclude, absent special circumstances, that the court has been deceived.

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2006. 10. 12. 선고 2004재다818 판결(공2006하, 1875)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 2004JaeDa818 decided October 12, 2006 (Gong 2006 Ha, 1875)

   Decisions referred to

   대법원 2006. 10. 12. 선고 2004재다818 판결(공2006하, 1875), 대법원 2011. 12. 22. 자 2011마1777 결정

7. 07Burden of proof

   The party asserting Stated in the decision

   당사자가 소송 등 수행을 위하여 제3자에게 직접 지출하는 이른바 ‘당사자비용’은 신청인이 반드시 소명하여야 하므로

   Unofficial English translation

   the so-called 'party costs,' which a party directly incurs to a third party in order to conduct the lawsuit, etc., must necessarily be substantiated by the applicant, and

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   What special circumstances would allow a court to conclude that an applicant deceived it, where no supporting material was fabricated and none false was submitted?

   The remand judgment of the Seoul Northern District Court would show how the caution is applied to a bare claim of KRW 5,000,000 in lawyer's fees unsupported by any document. A later decision defining the special circumstances the Court left open, or an amendment to Article 110(2) of the Civil Procedure Act on the documents to be filed with an application, would call for a fresh reading.

Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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.