대법원 1963. 10. 31. 선고 63다136 판결


Main Issues

Grounds for retrial of the so-called denial of judgment under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act and reconciliation in litigation

Summary of Judgment

In a reconciliation in a lawsuit, there is no time to reverse the so-called judgment under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this cannot be considered as a ground for retrial.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 206 and 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Appellant, Appellant


Reopening Defendant-Appellee


Judgment of the lower court

Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na379 delivered on February 13, 1963


The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.


The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff for retrial are examined.

If a compromise in litigation is entered in the protocol, it is clear by Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act that the protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and the compromise in this lawsuit is established due to the procedural acts that terminate the lawsuit by mutual concession between the parties, and there is no judgment of the court. Therefore, it is clear that this protocol cannot be considered as a ground for retrial because it is a case where a decision on important matters that may affect the judgment as referred to in Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is omitted. Accordingly, it is evident that such a ground for retrial cannot be considered as a ground for retrial, and the court below's decision that the suit in this case cannot be dismissed under such opinion is legitimate, and it cannot be adopted to criticize the original judgment by avoiding the opposing opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)


- 이동흡 재판상 화해의 효력 사법논집 24집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1993

- 민유숙 조정에 갈음하는 결정(조서)에 대한 준재심사유 대법원판례해설 54호 (2006.01) / 법원도서관 2006

- 박창현 재판상 화해의 창설적 효력 : 민법상 화해계약과 관련하여 . 판례연구 2집 / 부산판례연구회 1992

- 김상원 외2 소액사건심판법에 관한 연구 사법연구자료 1집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1974

- 이동흡 재판상 화해의 효력 민사재판의 제문제 8권 / 한국사법행정학회 1994

- 정동윤 제소전 화해의 효력 대한변호사협회지 87호 / 대한변호사협회 1983

- 강현중 재판상 화해 사법논집 13집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1982

- 강현중 재판상 화해의 창설적 효력 대법원판례해설 통권 제1호 (87.11) / 법원도서관 1987

- 조무제 소송상 상계의 항변 사법논집 12집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1981

- 진성규 제소전 화해의 실태와 문제점 부동산거래의 제문제 (79.06) / 민사판례연구회 1979

- 안병희 소송상 화해에 있어서의 몇가지 문제점 사법논집 3집 / 대법원 법원행정처 1972

- 한국. 대법원 법원행정처 재판실무편람 제43호: 조정재판실무편람 조정재판실무편람 집필위원회 2016


- 민사소송법 제206조 (위헌조문)

- 민사소송법 제422조 제1항 제9호 (위헌조문)


- 민사소송법 제206조

- 민사소송법 제422조 제1항 제9호


- 광주고법 1963. 2. 13. 선고 62나379 판결


- 기타자료