B. Whether a reversal of the judgment of the appellate court that was not asserted in the final appeal can be a ground for retrial (negative)

B. The grounds for retrial, such as the omission of judgment, should be deemed to have become aware by the party by the delivery of the original copy of judgment, barring special circumstances. Therefore, unless there were grounds for appeal as to the judgment subject to judgment while filing a final appeal, the grounds for retrial under the proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may not

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the first ground for appeal:

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that "when a party evades a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment," regardless of whether it constitutes a matter of ex officio investigation, it refers to the time when the party has failed to make a decision despite the party's assertion or request ex officio investigation to make a decision. Thus, it does not constitute a matter for which the party did not assert or urge the investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 85Mo43, Aug. 27, 1985).

However, according to the records, on the ground that the plaintiff had already gone through legitimate pre-assessment procedures with regard to the preceding disposition related to the taxation disposition of this case and the content of the judgment subject to reexamination of this case (the corporate tax of August 9, 1983 and the defense detailed disposition of this case), the plaintiff asserted that the pre-assessment procedures for the taxation of this case do not need to be conducted, or urged the ex officio investigation thereof, and there is no trace of the judgment being sought. Thus, there is no omission of judgment as alleged.

In addition, according to the proviso of Article 422(1) of the same Act, if a party claims a ground for retrial by an appeal or fails to know it, it shall not be allowed to institute a lawsuit for retrial. Barring any special circumstance, such as the waiver of judgment, it shall be reasonable to deem that the party becomes aware of such ground for retrial by the service of the original copy of judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Hu68, Oct. 22, 1985), barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Hu68, Oct. 22, 1985). According to the records, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment subject to review of this case as to the ground for appeal, and the judgment of the court below that the

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The parties concerned should not assert any new facts that were not asserted until the closure of the fact-finding hearing. According to the records, the plaintiff only asserted the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act as one of the grounds for retrial of this case in the court below, and there is no fact that the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 1 of the same Act have been asserted. Thus, the argument is groundless.

3. 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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)