[양도계약존재확인][집11(2)민,022]
The starting point of the period for filing a new trial on the ground of omission of judgment
If the judgment was delivered to the attorney, it is necessary to have known that there was a omission of judgment at the time of service, barring any special circumstances, and in such a case, it would have been possible to know whether there was a omission of judgment even in the party to the lawsuit.
Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act
Head of the tax office et al.
Changsan Co., Ltd.
Seoul High Court Decision 62Na1 delivered on March 7, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff for retrial.
This paper examines the grounds of appeal by the re-appellant and Kim Jae-ok.
(1) Of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of the above attorneys were examined. The Seoul High Court Decision No. 1960, Nov. 17, 1960, which became the object of the retrial, was served on the attorneys of the 1960s. Dec. 31, 1960, and it was evident that the waiver of the plaintiffs' right to appeal (No. 5) was presented to the court except for the 1st day of the 4th day of the 1961, 1961, and the 1st day of the 196th day of the 196th day of the 196th day of the 19th day of the 19th day of the 196th day of the 1st day of the 196th day of the 1st day of the 1961 judgment, and the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 196th day of the 16th day judgment.
(2) According to the original judgment on the additional grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of the Plaintiff’s attorney for reexamination and the additional grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of the Plaintiff’s attorney for reexamination (the grounds of appeal for additional appeal are interpreted to supplement the submission period or the above grounds of appeal No. 4, so it shall be determined as follows): the court below decided that the period for filing a lawsuit for reexamination on the grounds of the omission of judgment should be calculated from the time when the judgment was delivered to the attorney for reexamination, and that the court below agreed to withdraw the lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Defendant for reexamination on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff believed that there was withdrawal of the lawsuit by the Defendant for reexamination was legitimate delivery to the attorney for reexamination, and that there was no ground to reverse the presumption that the Plaintiff was aware of the omission of judgment in the above agreement, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of the original judgment on the part of the Plaintiff’s appeal No. 58 of the judgment that was erroneous in the misapprehension of the appellate judgment on the ground of appeal No. 58 of this decision, which stated that there was no error in the final judgment.
Therefore, the grounds of appeal on this case which is based on the premise that there is a omission of judgment in the judgment are not sufficient, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the highest leapbal leapbal leaps