[액화석유가스충전업변경허가반려처분취소][공1989.2.15.(842),239]
The initial date in reckoning the period of a retrial for the reason that there is a omission of judgment in a litigation case in which an attorney exists;
In a litigation case in which an attorney has been served, if the judgment was served on the attorney, the attorney should have known at the time the judgment was served, barring any special circumstances. In a case in which such attorney knew of the existence or absence of the judgment, the party to the lawsuit shall be deemed to have known of the existence or absence of the said judgment, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the period of a retrial lawsuit filed on the ground that there was a omission of the judgment on the final judgment, shall be calculated from the time when the attorney received the service of the judgment.
Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 80No1 delivered on July 22, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 84No3 delivered on February 28, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2192 delivered on June 9, 1987
Plaintiff
Jeonnam-do Governor (Attorney Kim Dong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 87-1 delivered on July 2, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In a litigation case in which there is an attorney, if the judgment was served on the attorney, the attorney was aware of the omission of the judgment at the time when the judgment was served, barring any special circumstances, and in case where the attorney knew of the existence of the omission of judgment, the party to the lawsuit was also aware of the existence of the omission of judgment, barring any special circumstances. Thus, the period for filing a retrial suit on the ground that there was a omission of judgment on the final judgment, shall be calculated from the time when the decision was served on the attorney (Article 84-3, Feb. 28, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2192, Jun. 9, 1987).
According to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff's attorney served the original copy of 85Gu76 judgment, which is the object of the review of this case on June 18, 1986, and that the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for review of this case on March 20, 1987, which is obvious after the 30th of the period for filing the petition for review of this case was expired. In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit for review of this case on the ground that the court below imposed a period for filing the petition for review of this case on the same purport is justified, and it is just in the disposition that the court below rejected the lawsuit for review of this case on the ground that it is unlawful. Other opinions are different, that the plaintiff's rejection of judgment on February 19, 1987, which was known that there was a failure of judgment on February 19,
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.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)
[Omission]
Justices Kim Yong-han and Kim Yong-han cannot sign and seal on business trip (Presiding Justice)