B. If the evidence of the appellate court's judgment has a ground under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, whether a request for retrial based on the same ground as to the judgment of the court of final appeal that only rendered a legal judgment is made

C. Whether a case in conflict with a final judgment of a criminal or civil case rendered before the judgment of an administrative litigation case is included in the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

D. Whether the judgment of the court below in the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes “a basic judgment” under Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

B. If the judgment subject to a retrial does not recognize facts based on evidence that it did not determine the grounds of appeal, it cannot be a legitimate ground for a retrial against the judgment subject to a retrial, even if there are grounds falling under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, even if the evidence constituting the evidence of fact-finding of the judgment by the lower court,

C. Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When it conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial,” which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the same Act refers to cases where res judicata of a judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial is inconsistent with and inconsistent with res judicata of the judgment that became final and conclusive prior to the filing of a new trial. Therefore, there is no room to include the contents of a criminal judgment

D. As stated in Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Act, “a judgment based on which a judgment is rendered” refers to a judgment (an intermediate judgment, or a ruling or order in the proceedings prior to the final judgment) that directly affects the final judgment, on the premise of the final judgment, and the judgment of the court below subject to retrial does not constitute the same.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the assertion that there is a ground falling under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as this Act) in the judgment subject to a retrial

The term "when a judgment was omitted on important matters that affect the judgment, which are grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Act, which are applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act," refers to the case where a judgment is not indicated in the grounds for the judgment concerning those which affect the judgment by the means of attack and defense which are submitted by the parties in a lawsuit, and as long as there is such judgment, it cannot be deemed a deviation from the judgment under the above Act even if the grounds for the judgment are not clearly stated or the grounds for rejecting the parties' claims are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83No2, Oct. 8, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu392, Nov. 11, 1986).

If the court below's decision on the original judgment (hereinafter referred to as "the court below's decision on the original judgment") and the petition for appeal, appellate brief, and the judgment subject to a retrial are compared, the court below's decision that "the plaintiff waivers the plaintiff's right to the real estate of this case as a process of reconciliation contract, etc. as stated in its decision on the original judgment, and thus there is no violation of the rules of evidence or law in terms of reasoning or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's right to appeal against the adjudication on expropriation of the real estate of this case can not be accepted merely on the premise that the court below did not recognize the validity of a compromise contract between the plaintiff and the non-party (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff")'s right to a new judgment on the original judgment and the non-party's assertion that the plaintiff's right to the above real estate of this case was lost due to the plaintiff's violation of the rules of evidence and that the court below rejected the plaintiff's right to the above 100th judgment on the ground of appeal.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the theory of lawsuit that there is a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to retrial from an independent point of view, and there is no reason to discuss.

As to the assertion that there is a ground falling under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Act

The judgment subject to a retrial is not a matter of finding facts based on evidence, even if it rendered a legal judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

Therefore, even if there are grounds falling under Article 422(1)7 of the Act as evidence supporting the fact-finding of the lower judgment, this cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial against the judgment subject to a retrial, even if there are grounds for falling under Article 422(1)7 of the Act. Therefore, this cannot be a legitimate ground

As to the assertion that there is a ground falling under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Act

Article 422(1)10 of the Act provides that a cause for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Act is a provision to resolve conflict between res judicata of a judgment and that “when a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to a judgment to make a retrial conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to bring a new trial” refers to cases where res judicata effect of a judgment that became final and conclusive prior to the judgment, conflicts with res judicata effect and conflict with that of a judgment rendered prior to the judgment. Therefore, there is no room to include cases that conflict with the contents of a criminal judgment rendered prior to the judgment to be tried, and the same applies to cases where the judgment subject to new trial is an administrative litigation and the parties

As to the ground for retrial under Article 423 of the Act

As stated in Article 423 of the Act, “a judgment based on which a judgment has been rendered” refers to a judgment (an interim judgment or a ruling or order in the procedure prior to the final judgment) that directly affects the final judgment, which is a premise for the final judgment, and the judgment of the original judgment does not constitute an original judgment. Furthermore, without examining the issues, is well-grounded.

As to the argument that the judgment subject to review is unconstitutional

The argument of the theory of the lawsuit does not constitute any ground for a retrial under Article 422 of the Administrative Litigation Act which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, there is no ground for retrial as to this case, and it is without merit. The costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)