Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Set-off barred by a separate final cost-fixing ruling
Supreme Court, Sept. 27, 2023, 2022Ma6885 (ruling)
Case name: 소송비용액확정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the respondent, appealing immediately against a first-instance ruling that fixed only the applicant's share of costs, filed its own cost statement and the documents needed to substantiate the amount, must the court in principle fix the shares again, and may the costs already fixed for the respondent in a separate final cost-fixing ruling be set off against the amount it must repay?
Holding
In principle, yes to the first question and no to the second. Where a respondent submits its cost statement and the documents needed to substantiate it with an immediate appeal, the court should reconsider them together and fix the shares again; but where the respondent has applied for a separate cost-fixing ruling and that ruling has become final, its own costs are recovered under that ruling, and the amount fixed there must not be set off against the amount it must repay. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling below for misapprehending the statutory set-off rule and remanded the case to the Busan High Court.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 피신청인이 별도의 소송비용액확정결정을 신청하여 그 결정이 확정된 경우에는 피신청인은 그 결정에 따라 자신의 소송비용액을 상환받아야 할 것이므로, 위와 같이 별도의 결정에서 상환받는 것으로 확정된 피신청인의 소송비용액에 대해서는 피신청인이 상환하여야 할 소송비용액과 상계를 하여서는 안 된다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where the respondent has applied for a separate decision confirming the amount of litigation costs and that decision has become final and conclusive, the respondent shall be reimbursed his or her own litigation costs in accordance with that decision; accordingly, as for the respondent's litigation costs determined in the separate decision as being reimbursed in the above manner, set-off must not be made against the litigation costs which the respondent is to reimburse.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피신청인이 신청인의 비용에 대해서만 분담액을 정한 제1심결정에 대하여 즉시항고를 하면서 자신의 비용계산서와 그 비용액을 소명하는 데 필요한 서면을 제출한 경우에 원칙적으로는 이를 함께 고려하여 소송비용 분담액을 다시 산정하여 확정하는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the respondent, upon filing an immediate appeal against the order of the court of first instance that determined the amount to be borne only in respect of the applicant's costs, submitted his or her own statement of costs and documents necessary to prove the amount of those costs, it is in principle appropriate to take these into account as well and to recalculate and determine the amount of litigation costs to be borne.
Factors
- 당사자 쌍방이 소송비용을 일정 비율로 분담하도록 재판이 된 경우
- 피신청인이 신청인의 비용에 대해서만 분담액을 정한 제1심결정에 대하여 즉시항고를 하면서
- 피신청인이 별도의 소송비용액확정결정을 신청하여 그 결정이 확정된 경우에는
- 별도의 결정에서 상환받는 것으로 확정된 피신청인의 소송비용액에 대해서는
Unofficial English translation
• Where a judgment has ordered both parties to bear the litigation costs in a certain proportion
• Where the respondent, upon filing an immediate appeal against the order of the court of first instance that determined the amount to be borne only in respect of the applicant's costs,
• Where the respondent has applied for a separate decision confirming the amount of litigation costs and that decision has become final and conclusive,
• As for the respondent's litigation costs determined in the separate decision as being reimbursed,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
당사자 각자의 분담액이 대등액에서 상계된 것으로 하고 그 차액만을 일방의 당사자가 상대방에게 지급하도록 함으로써 소송비용을 둘러싼 법률관계를 간이하게 처리하기 위한 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
It is intended to handle the legal relationship surrounding litigation costs in a simplified manner by deeming the amounts borne by each of the parties to have been set off against each other in equal amounts and requiring one party to pay only the difference to the other party.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the separate cost-fixing ruling is applied for but not yet final when the immediate appeal is decided, may the amount it would fix still be set off in the appeal?
A later decision on the position where a separate cost-fixing ruling is pending, or one reversing or annulling such a ruling after it becomes final, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 111(2) or Article 112 of the Civil Procedure Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the court as setting out a new standard, while the independent reading marks the precedent relation as unconfirmed; the opinion's reliance on the statutory set-off rule supports both labels.
당사자 각자의 분담액이 대등액에서 상계된 것으로 하고 그 차액만을 일방의 당사자가 상대방에게 지급하도록 함으로써 소송비용을 둘러싼 법률관계를 간이하게 처리하기 위한 것이다.Raw 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 Busan High Court, in its ruling of 21 September 2022 (2022Ra5063), held that where a respondent submits its cost statement and the documents needed to substantiate it with an immediate appeal, the court must fix the amount again taking them into account. It therefore did not accept the applicant's argument that no set-off should be made because the respondent's costs had already been fixed in a separate cost-fixing ruling, and instead calculated the amounts borne by both parties and set them off against each other.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the set-off made below misapprehended the statutory set-off of litigation costs under Article 112 of the Civil Procedure Act and affected the outcome. The respondent had both argued set-off on the immediate appeal and applied for a separate cost-fixing ruling, and KRW 409,090 had been fixed as payable by the applicant to the respondent, with that ruling becoming final on 2 September 2022. That amount must not be set off, so the ruling below was reversed and the case remanded to the Busan High Court for rehearing, on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An immediate appeal in which the respondent never filed its cost statement or the documents needed to substantiate its own costs, since the principle of reconsidering both sides' costs together rests on that filing.
- A case in which the respondent applied for no separate cost-fixing ruling, or in which such a ruling has not become final, so that the respondent's costs are not recovered under a final ruling.
- A dispute over costs where the parties were not ordered to share them in a fixed proportion by the judgment, since Article 112 presupposes such an allocation.
Record verification notes
Establish the sequence before relying on this ruling: when the immediate appeal was filed, when the separate cost-fixing ruling was applied for and when it became final, and whether the amount fixed there is the same amount the respondent now offers to set off. Then check which costs each party's cost statement covers and the shares fixed by the judgment, here 60 per cent on the respondent and 40 per cent on the applicant and the Korea Certified Realtors Association.
From the official text
Points at issue
피신청인이 신청인의 비용에 대해서만 분담액을 정한 제1심결정에 대하여 즉시항고를 하면서 비용계산서와 비용액을 소명하는 데 필요한 서면을 제출한 경우, 이를 함께 고려하여 소송비용 분담액을 다시 산정하여 확정하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 피신청인이 별도의 소송비용액확정결정을 신청하여 그 결정이 확정된 경우, 위 결정에서 상환받는 것으로 확정된 피신청인의 소송비용액에 대해 피신청인이 상환하여야 할 소송비용액과 상계할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the respondent, upon filing an immediate appeal against the order of the court of first instance that determined the amount to be borne only in respect of the applicant's costs, submitted a statement of costs and documents necessary to prove the amount of those costs, whether the amount of litigation costs to be borne must be recalculated and determined again by taking these into account as well (affirmative in principle) / Where the respondent has applied for a separate decision confirming the amount of litigation costs and that decision has become final and conclusive, whether set-off may be made against the litigation costs which the respondent is to reimburse in respect of the respondent's litigation costs determined in the said decision as being reimbursed (negative)
Summary of the holding
민사소송법 제112조 본문은 "법원이 소송비용을 결정하는 경우에 당사자들이 부담할 비용은 대등한 금액에서 상계된 것으로 본다."라고 규정하고 있다. 이는 당사자 쌍방이 소송비용을 일정 비율로 분담하도록 재판이 된 경우 당사자 각자의 분담액이 대등액에서 상계된 것으로 하고 그 차액만을 일방의 당사자가 상대방에게 지급하도록 함으로써 소송비용을 둘러싼 법률관계를 간이하게 처리하기 위한 것이다. 한편 피신청인이 자신의 비용계산서와 비용액을 소명하는 데 필요한 서면을 최고기간 내에 제출하지 않은 때에는 법원은 신청인의 비용에 대해서만 그 분담액을 정할 수 있으나, 그 경우에도 피신청인은 별도의 소송비용액확정결정을 신청할 수 있다(민사소송법 제111조 제2항 본문, 제111조 제2항 단서). 이러한 사정에 비추어 살펴보면, 피신청인이 신청인의 비용에 대해서만 분담액을 정한 제1심결정에 대하여 즉시항고를 하면서 자신의 비용계산서와 그 비용액을 소명하는 데 필요한 서면을 제출한 경우에 원칙적으로는 이를 함께 고려하여 소송비용 분담액을 다시 산정하여 확정하는 것이 타당하다. 그러나 피신청인이 별도의 소송비용액확정결정을 신청하여 그 결정이 확정된 경우에는 피신청인은 그 결정에 따라 자신의 소송비용액을 상환받아야 할 것이므로, 위와 같이 별도의 결정에서 상환받는 것으로 확정된 피신청인의 소송비용액에 대해서는 피신청인이 상환하여야 할 소송비용액과 상계를 하여서는 안 된다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제111조 제2항, 제112조
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.
Back to the ledger