[소유권이전등기말소등][공1983.11.1.(715),1483]
Whether the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the grounds for retrial constitutes grounds for appeal
The court below's judgment that the ground for a retrial does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 5 of the Civil Procedure Act does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 5 of the same Act. The ground for appeal that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial does not constitute any of the grounds under the subparagraphs of
Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion of Legal Proceedings
Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)
Defendant (Re-Defendant) 1 and five others
Seoul High Court Decision 81Na3 delivered on June 30, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief is filed after the lapse of the period, so the grounds of appeal are considered to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).
The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: First, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for a retrial and incomplete hearing in its determination that the grounds for the plaintiff's claim for a retrial do not constitute the grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 5 of the Civil Procedure Act; second, the court below's determination that the plaintiff's claim for a retrial (the defendant 2 and five others (the defendant 2 and the defendant 1) against the defendant 1 (the defendant 1) and the defendant 2 and five others (the defendant 2) conflict with the res judicata effect of the final judgment rendered by the Seoul District Court 76 joint 205 (the defendant 205).
However, the first of the grounds for appeal does not fall under any of the grounds under the subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the second of the grounds for appeal is not erroneous, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.
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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)