[2] In a case where the Supreme Court's judgment was made only after the final judgment was made by itself by confirming the fact that the final judgment was not made, but did not decide on what kind of statutory interpretation as to whether such a measure is permissible, whether it constitutes a case where the Supreme Court's previous opinion that the final judgment is impossible to render the final judgment by itself after the final

[2] In a case where the Supreme Court's judgment was made only after the final judgment was made by itself, but did not make any decision on whether such a measure is permissible, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court's previous opinion was changed as to whether "it is possible for the Supreme Court to make a final judgment by itself by confirming the fact that the original judgment was not final and conclusive, even though the above measure was erroneous, it is against the provisions of the law on the right to investigate facts in the Supreme Court's judgment, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was a ground for retrial that did not constitute a judgment court by a collegiate body composed of not less than 2/3 of all Justices.

1. The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") is a ground for retrial. First, the court below's decision to dismiss this part of the plaintiff's appeal based on the plaintiff's judgment's determination as to the existence or absence of a fact alleged as the ground for appeal, although the decision for retrial was erroneous by the court below's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal without destroying or returning this part of the judgment below, is an alteration of the opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 62No13 delivered on October 11, 1962 that the Supreme Court's decision not to render a final judgment of reversal or dismissal of appeal shall not be made by itself, and this is a matter to be decided by a two-thirds or more collegiate body of all Justices, but the decision for retrial was decided by a panel composed of four-thirds or more of all Justices, and therefore there is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act

In cases where the previous Supreme Court’s opinion on the application of laws is modified, it shall be tried at a collegiate body comprised of not less than two-thirds of all the Justices, and where a judgment is rendered in a panel comprised of less than two-thirds of all the Justices, it shall not constitute a judgment court under the law, and it constitutes a case where there exists any ground for retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da13, Dec. 28, 1982; 86No2, May 12, 1987).

However, the original judgment was dismissed on the ground that there was no interest in confirming the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership. The opinion of the court of final appeal on the scope of the right to investigate facts is erroneous, and the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership confirmation cannot be accepted on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the claim. However, in this case where only the Plaintiff appealed, it cannot be judged more unfavorable than the original judgment, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership confirmation cannot be dismissed." Thus, if the original judgment was made by itself and the final judgment was made by itself and did not decide on any statutory interpretation as to whether such measures were permissible, even if the above measures were erroneous, it cannot be accepted as a measure that violates the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the right to investigate facts of final appeal even if the original judgment did not have become final and conclusive on the ground that it did not constitute “the final judgment by itself,” and it cannot be accepted as a ground for retrial by a collegiate body of the Supreme Court since it did not constitute more than 23 percent of all the original judgment.

2. Second, the plaintiff did not reverse and remand the judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership and rendered a final judgment by himself beyond his authority to do so. The plaintiff committed an unlawful act of deviation from the judgment on the facts alleged as the cause of the plaintiff's claim, and did not directly determine the grounds of appeal that there was an error of misunderstanding the legal principles on the relation between res judicata and the scope of successors after the closing of argument that the judgment was erroneous in the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal that there was an error of misunderstanding the legal principles on the relation between res judicata effect and the scope of successors after the closing of argument that affected res judicata effect. Thus, the judgment

However, the judgment subject to a retrial is that "the plaintiff purchased the above land from the non-party 2 on March 5, 1955, and cultivated it as a dry field after completing the registration of ownership transfer under its name on June 14 of the same year, and the plaintiff purchased and occupied it through the non-party 3, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiff. Therefore, on June 14, 1965, the plaintiff alleged that the acquisition of the plaintiff's registry by prescription was completed, and it is difficult to find that the non-party 1 occupied the above land from June 14, 1955 or was not negligent in its possession." Further, the judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's ground that the plaintiff's request for a confirmation of ownership transfer was not appropriate for the plaintiff's dismissal of the above land, and it is not clear that the plaintiff's remaining grounds of appeal cannot be accepted as to the registration of ownership transfer under the premise that the plaintiff's registration of ownership was not established under the title of the real estate trust.

3. Therefore, the request for retrial shall be dismissed, and the costs of the retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)