B. Grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act where a judgment of fact finding erroneous is used as evidence

C. Whether a judge who received the challenge after the closing of argument has pronounced a judgment

B. Article 422(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When the submission of a means of attack and defense has been obstructed” refers to cases where a party’s submission of a means of attack and defense in the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to a retrial is directly obstructed due to an act punishable by another person’s criminal punishment, and the judgment against him/her is finalized by submission of a written judgment in other cases, such as erroneous recognition of facts in the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to a retrial, not the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to a retrial, and accordingly, the grounds for rejection of the assertion that the progress of the period of acquiring real estate ownership due to possession was interrupted by the filing of the lawsuit

C. Pronouncement of a final judgment can be made even when a motion for challenge is filed, so it cannot be said that a judge who received the motion for challenge after the closing of argument does not suspend litigation procedures and sentence of the final judgment is unlawful.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appellant).

The court below rejected the plaintiff's ground for retrial under the proviso of Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, where the plaintiff, on August 29, 1991, was sentenced to a ruling dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on August 17, 1992 as a result of the plaintiff's appeal to the same court, and the decision dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on April 24, 1992, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on April 24, 1992. The court below rejected the plaintiff's ground for retrial under the proviso of Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, where the court below rejected the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff waived the plaintiff's claim that the land in this case was owned by the plaintiff around October 191, 191, and the court below rejected the plaintiff's ground for retrial as to the plaintiff's ground for retrial under the proviso of Article 422 (1) 9 of the same Act, because it was evident that there was omission of judgment as alleged in the original judgment.

According to the statement in the fifth oral argument by the court below, it is clear that the plaintiff was aware that there was an omission of such determination in the judgment subject to a retrial immediately after receiving the original copy of the judgment, and even if the above entry in the family oral argument is a clerical error as stated above, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff should be deemed to have known that there was an error of omission in the judgment subject to a retrial at the time of receiving the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial. According to the records, the plaintiff's ground of appeal as to the judgment subject to a retrial was presented to the plaintiff on May 12, 1966 that the plaintiff would purchase the land of this case at KRW 1,00,000, which was approved that the land of this case was owned by the plaintiff, and therefore, the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's argument that the acquisition of the land of this case was suspended by the judgment subject to a retrial was erroneous, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the defendant would purchase the land of this case at least KRW 5,000,00.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In summary, the plaintiff's assertion that the decision subject to a retrial was suspended due to the plaintiff's possession of the land of this case by filing a lawsuit against the deceased non-party 1, who is the deceased's decedent in Daegu District Court (65A3064). The above case was finalized on September 27, 1966. Thus, even if the plaintiff filed a request for a retrial on September 16, 1991, it cannot be deemed that the progress of the acquisition period due to possession cannot be interrupted. However, the plaintiff's rejection of the above assertion in the above case was due to the plaintiff's rejection of the claim for a procedure for the registration of transfer of land ownership (64A1622) against the above deceased non-party 2, who was the deceased's decedent 2, by means of falsely stating the address of the above non-party 2, and the decision was delivered as evidence from the litigation procedure of the above case, and the Daegu District Court's rejection of the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's ground for retrial had already been invalidated by the plaintiff 16516222.

However, Article 422 (1) 5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the submission of a method of attack and defense has been obstructed" refers to a case where a person's submission of a means of attack and defense has been interfered directly due to an act punishable by another person's criminal punishment in the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to a retrial, as alleged by the plaintiff, a judgment of the plaintiff's failure becomes final and conclusive by submitting as evidence a written judgment of a judgment which contains an error of finding facts in the litigation procedure of another case, not the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to a retrial, and accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the period of acquiring real estate ownership due to possession was suspended by the institution of the lawsuit in the judgment subject to a retrial does not constitute grounds for a retrial. Thus, there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below that there was

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The declaration of a final judgment can be made even when a motion for challenge is filed (proviso to Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, there is no reason to argue that a judge who received a motion for challenge after the closing of argument does not suspend litigation procedures and sentence of the judgment is illegal

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)