[법인명칭변경절차이행][공1980.2.1.(625),12410]
Judgment subject to retrial shall not fall under the previous trial.
Therefore, even if a judge involved in a trial subject to retrial participated in the trial of the relevant case, it cannot be deemed as a ground for exclusion or a ground for retrial under Article 37 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Articles 37 and 422 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 71No27 delivered on May 11, 1971
Plaintiff
[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant]
Supreme Court Decision 79Da4 Delivered on May 8, 1979
The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the request for retrial is to seek a considerable judgment again with the cancellation of the above judgment subject to review and the party members' 78Da1929.
The grounds for retrial of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) are examined.
(1) According to the judgment of the court below which held that the above defendant 2's ground for retrial was no longer than 77,000, and that the above defendant 2's ground for retrial was no longer than 97,000,000,000 were no more than 77,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were no more than 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.
In light of Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, each of the above reasons alleged by the plaintiff as a ground for retrial under subparagraph 1 (2) (5) of the same paragraph cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. (3) In light of the above judgment, the plaintiff alleged as one of the grounds for retrial under Article 79-4 of the above case, which is the judgment subject to retrial, in the second instance court after remanding the case, that "the defendant did not have a party to the plaintiff's private teaching institutes, which is the defendant foundation, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for retrial under Article 47 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is not a party to the second instance court's judgment of Article 47 (1) (2) of the above case's grounds for retrial) and it cannot be viewed as a ground for retrial under Article 97 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act's grounds for retrial, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for retrial under Article 97 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act's No.7).
Therefore, this case's lawsuit becomes final and conclusive because there is no ground for retrial, and it is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)