[사용료][집50(1)민,472;공2002.7.1.(157),1394]
Standard for determining whether there was omission of judgment in a judgment
In order to clarify the judgment of the court, since the conclusion is to be stated in the text, whether there is a omission of judgment shall be determined by the statement in the text. In the case where the judgment on the whole of the claim is stated in the text, but the judgment on the part of the claim is omitted, it can be said that there is an omission of judgment without attaching the reasons therefor.
Article 198 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 68Da508 Decided May 28, 1968 (No. 16-2, 90)
Korean Capital Capital Co., Ltd. (former Trade Name: Heavy Loan Finance Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Attorney Jeong-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Na7682 delivered on October 18, 2001
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In order to clarify the judgment of the court, since the conclusion is to be stated in the text, whether there is omission of judgment shall be judged by the statement in the order. In the case where the judgment on the whole of the claim is stated in the order, but the judgment on the part of the claim is omitted, it can be said that there is an error of law not attaching the reasons, and it cannot be said that there is omission of judgment on the whole of the claim.
According to the records, the court below revoked the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim and stated in the order that "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on January 1, 200," on the premise that the plaintiff is a joint owner of the leased object or co-owner under Article 79 of the Bankruptcy Act, the holder of the right to repurchase under Article 85 of the same Act, the holder of the right to separate settlement under Article 85 of the same Act, and the holder of the right to separate settlement under Article 38 subparagraphs 4 and 5 of the same Act, and the plaintiff's claim seeking payment of the amount of money for lease shall be revoked, and the decision of first instance
As long as the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim in the order of judgment, it cannot be said that there is a omission of judgment even if part of the claim has been omitted during the reasons for snow investigation, and with the same purport, the judgment of the court below that declared the termination of lawsuit against the plaintiff's request for fixed date is correct, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the omission of judgment as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and the remaining grounds of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal as to the part which the court below determined additionally
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)