Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Whether an opposing party's supplementary expert examination fee that duplicates the aided party's expert examination may be deleted in the procedure for determining the amount of litigation expenses
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, June 12, 2026, 2026Mu533 (ruling)
Case name: 소송비용액확정
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
If the party who received litigation expense aid for the expert examination fee lost on the merits, must that party still reimburse the opposing party for the fee of the supplementary expert examination that the opposing party additionally applied for on the same subject matter?
Holding
No. Where the opposing party incurred an expert examination fee, such as by additionally applying for a supplementary expert examination on the same subject matter as the aided party's request for expert examination, then even if the judgment on the burden of litigation expenses has become final, that expert examination fee may be deleted in the procedure for determining the amount of litigation expenses as an improper expense item contrary to the purpose of litigation expense aid. Whether an expense was necessary is determined objectively and reasonably on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
비록 상대방 당사자가 승소하여 패소한 수구조자에게 소송비용을 부담시키는 재판이 확정되었다고 하더라도 소송비용액 확정절차에서 위 추가 감정료는 소송구조의 취지에 반하는 부당한 비용항목으로서 삭제할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if a judgment imposing the litigation costs on the party receiving legal aid, who lost the case, has become final and conclusive because the opposing party prevailed, it must be regarded that, in the procedure for determination of the amount of litigation costs, the additional appraisal fee may be deleted as an improper cost item contrary to the purport of legal aid.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
상대방이 수구조자의 감정신청사항과 같은 취지의 보완감정을 추가로 신청하는 등으로 추가 감정료를 지출하게 된 것으로 볼 수 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
where it may be regarded that additional appraisal fees were incurred by the opposing party additionally applying for a supplementary appraisal of the same substance as the appraisal requested by the party receiving legal aid, and the like
Factors
- 수구조자의 감정신청사항과 같은 취지의 보완감정을 추가로 신청하는 등
- 대상 행위 당시의 구체적 상황을 기초로 객관적·합리적으로 판단해야 하고
- 사후적으로 소송의 결과만을 기준으로 판단할 것은 아니다
- 사회보장수급권에 관한 행정소송의 성질 및 소송구조 제도가 지니는 헌법적 함의
Unofficial English translation
• additionally applying for a supplementary appraisal of the same substance as the appraisal requested by the party receiving legal aid, and the like
• must be judged objectively and rationally on the basis of the specific circumstances at the time of the act in question, and
• it must not be judged retroactively solely on the basis of the outcome of the lawsuit
• the nature of administrative litigation concerning the right to receive social security benefits and the constitutional implications of the legal aid system
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
소송비용액 확정절차에서 위 추가 감정료를 부당한 비용항목으로서 삭제할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in the procedure for determination of the amount of litigation costs, the additional appraisal fee may be deleted as an improper cost item (affirmative)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1991. 9. 24. 자 91마277 결정, 대법원 2011. 9. 8. 자 2009마1689 결정, 대법원 2016. 12. 29. 자 2016마1243 결정, 대법원 2022. 5. 12. 자 2017마6274 결정(공2022하, 1099), 헌법재판소 2002. 5. 30. 선고 2001헌바28 전원재판부 결정(헌공69, 476)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Can the opposing party's additional expert examination fee that duplicates the aided party's expert examination also be deleted for the same reason in an ordinary civil action, rather than in an administrative litigation concerning social security benefit entitlements?
This reading will be checked again if the litigation expense aid provisions of the Civil Procedure Act or the rules governing the calculation of expert examination fees change, or if a decision of the court below on remand fixing the scope of the deletion of the expert examination fee is confirmed.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by a different AI lineage (GPT-6 Astra) that read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
Because the original text connects the general legal principle on the deletion of improper expense items and on the necessity of expenses to the additional expert examination fee of a party who received litigation expense aid, the first reading may place weight on the specific standard arising from litigation expense aid, while the independent reading may place weight on the application of the general legal principle.
대법원 2022. 5. 12. 자 2017마6274 결정(공2022하, 1099)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Can the opposing party's additional expert examination fee that duplicates the aided party's expert examination be deleted for the same reason also in an ordinary civil action, not an administrative litigation concerning social security benefit entitlements?” vs Independent “Where an additional expert examination includes both matters that duplicate the original request for expert examination and matters that are independently necessary, how should the scope of deletion of the expert examination fee be determined?”
The first reading asks about the scope of application to ordinary civil actions, while the independent reading asks about the scope of deletion of an expert examination fee where the examination contains both duplicating matters and independently necessary matters.
비록 상대방 당사자가 승소하여 패소한 수구조자에게 소송비용을 부담시키는 재판이 확정되었다고 하더라도 소송비용액 확정절차에서 위 추가 감정료는 소송구조의 취지에 반하는 부당한 비용항목으로서 삭제할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.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 court below held that the procedure for determining the amount of litigation expenses is no more than a post hoc, ancillary procedure that fixes the specific scope of the rights and obligations confirmed by the judgment on the burden of litigation expenses, and that the fact that a litigation expense aid decision had been made, or that the respondent currently lacks means of its own, does not constitute grounds for discretionary reduction; it therefore upheld the first-instance decision that recognized 600,000 won of expert examination fees on the applicant's side as the amount of litigation expenses to be reimbursed by the respondent.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, citing that the applicant's supplementary questions — the applicant being a public-law corporation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act — were substantially duplicative of the respondent's questions or were matters necessarily presupposed by the expert examination, and that the results of the expert examination were nearly identical, together with the nature of the industrial accident compensation insurance system as public insurance, held that the circumstances were not such that the increase could properly be borne as a matter of course by the aided party. It reversed and remanded, holding that the court below had misunderstood the legal principle on the calculation of the amount of litigation expenses and had failed to conduct the necessary fact-finding.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the opposing party's additional matters for expert examination did not duplicate the aided party's request for expert examination and a separate expert examination was in fact necessary
- A case in which the losing party did not receive litigation expense aid for the expert examination fee
- A case in which the judgment on the merits had already determined the burden of litigation expenses so that each party bears its own expert examination fee
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, compare the opposing party's questions and the aided party's questions item by item to check whether the results of the expert examination are substantially duplicative, and whether the opposing party could have achieved its purpose merely by submitting a written opinion.
From the official text
Points at issue
소송의 일방 당사자가 감정을 신청하고 감정료에 대하여 소송구조를 받았음에도 상대방이 수구조자의 감정신청사항과 같은 취지의 보완감정을 추가로 신청하는 등으로 추가 감정료를 지출한 후 상대방 당사자가 본안소송에서 승소하여 패소한 수구조자에게 소송비용을 부담시키는 재판이 확정된 경우, 소송비용액 확정절차에서 위 추가 감정료를 부당한 비용항목으로서 삭제할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in a case where one party to the lawsuit applied for an appraisal and received legal aid with respect to the appraisal fee, but the opposing party incurred additional appraisal fees by additionally applying for a supplementary appraisal of the same substance as the appraisal requested by the party receiving legal aid, and a judgment imposing the litigation costs on the party receiving legal aid, who lost the action on the merits, while the opposing party prevailed, has become final and conclusive, the additional appraisal fee may be deleted, in the procedure for determination of the amount of litigation costs, as an improper cost item (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
소송의 일방 당사자가 감정을 신청하고 감정료에 대하여 소송구조를 받았음에도(이하 소송구조를 받은 당사자를 ‘수구조자’라 한다), 상대방이 수구조자의 감정신청사항과 같은 취지의 보완감정을 추가로 신청하는 등으로 추가 감정료를 지출하게 된 것으로 볼 수 있는 경우, 비록 상대방 당사자가 승소하여 패소한 수구조자에게 소송비용을 부담시키는 재판이 확정되었다고 하더라도 소송비용액 확정절차에서 위 추가 감정료는 소송구조의 취지에 반하는 부당한 비용항목으로서 삭제할 수 있다고 보아야 한다. 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 소송비용액 확정절차에서는 상환할 소송비용의 액수를 정할 수 있을 뿐, 소송비용부담에 관한 재판에서 확정한 상환의무 자체의 존부나 범위를 심리·판단하거나 변경할 수 없다. 그러나 소송비용액 확정절차에서 법원이 당사자가 신청한 총금액을 한도로 부당한 비용항목을 삭제·감액하고 정당한 비용항목을 추가하거나 당사자가 주장한 항목의 금액보다 액수를 증액하는 것은 가능하다. ② 민사소송비용법 제1조, 민사소송법 제99조 규정을 종합하면, 소송비용부담의 재판이 확정된 이후 소송비용액 확정절차에서도 해당 소송상 필요한 비용만이 구체적인 소송비용액으로 인정될 수 있다. 이때 당사자가 지출한 비용이 해당 소송상 필요한 것이었는지는 대상 행위 당시의 구체적 상황을 기초로 객관적·합리적으로 판단해야 하고, 사후적으로 소송의 결과만을 기준으로 판단할 것은 아니다. ③ 본안재판에서 수소법원 또는 재판장이 민사소송규칙 제101조 제4항, 제1항 및 제3항, 감정인등 선정과 감정료 산정기준 등에 관한 예규(재일 2008-1) 제44조 제4항, 제27조 제1항에 따라 재량권을 행사하여 감정사항 및 감정료를 정한 이상, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 감정료는 해당 소송상 필요한 것이었다고 볼 수 있다. 따라서 이 경우 감정신청인의 상대방에게 소송비용의 부담을 명하는 재판이 확정되었다면, 감정신청인은 소송비용액 확정을 신청하여 상대방으로부터 감정료를 상환받을 수 있다. 이러한 법리는 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 행정소송규칙 제4조에 의하여 민사소송법, 민사소송규칙의 규정이 준용되는 행정소송에서도 기본적으로 마찬가지이다. ④ 소송구조 제도는 소송비용을 지출할 자금능력이 부족한 사람에게 소송절차에서 기회균등을 보장함으로써, 직접적으로는 재판을 받을 권리를, 간접적으로는 인간다운 생활을 할 권리 등을 보장하는 수단이다. 한편 사회보장수급권에 관한 행정소송에서 당사자인 사인이 감정을 신청하고 감정료에 대하여 소송구조를 받은 이후 그 상대방인 행정청 등이 추가로 감정을 신청하여 감정료를 지출한 경우에는, 사회보장수급권에 관한 행정소송의 성질 및 소송구조 제도가 지니는 헌법적 함의를 고려하여 소송구조 대상에 포함되지 않는 추가 감정료 상당의 소송비용을 수구조자가 부담하는 것이 부당한 경우에 해당하지 않는지도 살펴볼 필요가 있다.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 행정소송규칙 제4조, 민사소송법 제98조, 제99조, 제110조, 제128조, 민사소송비용법 제1조, 민사소송규칙 제101조
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