B. Whether a judge, who has a ground for challenge, participated in a trial, constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

C. The meaning of Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act “when a judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment”

D. Whether the judgment subject to a retrial has become a ground for retrial in conflict with the Supreme Court precedents (negative)

(b) Even if a judge with a reason for challenge has participated in a trial, the phrase “when the judge is unable to participate in the trial under the law” under Article 422(1)2 of the same Act does not constitute “when the judge participates in the trial

C. Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment has been omitted” refers to an attack and defense method submitted by the parties, and where a judgment is not indicated in the reasoning of the judgment in regard to those matters that may affect the conclusion of the judgment, it shall not be deemed that a judgment has been omitted even if the judgment was erroneously made.

D. The decision subject to a retrial cannot be a ground for retrial where the decision subject to a retrial conflicts with the Supreme Court precedents.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

First, in the en banc Decision 87Nu308 delivered on December 26, 1989, Justices involved in the decision for a retrial. Such circumstance constitutes grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act because it is difficult to expect a judge under Article 39 (1) of the same Act to be fair in trial. Second, Article 60 of the Medical Service Act, which is a provision on similar medical professionals, only provides for the qualifications, qualifications, and procedures for obtaining qualifications, which is the provision on protecting only the minority's right of life, and ultimately, it violates Article 11 of the Constitution, which provides for equality rights, and Article 9 of the Constitution which provides for the development of traditional culture and the promotion of national culture, and Article 39 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act which provides that registration of the plaintiff constitutes a legitimate social organization, and thus, it constitutes a violation of Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The circumstance that a judge expressed a legal opinion unfavorable to a party in another case of the same content between the other parties does not constitute a ground for challenge under Article 39(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2009, May 15, 1984). Moreover, even if a judge having a ground for challenge participated in a trial, it does not constitute “when a judge is unable to participate in a trial under the law” under Article 422(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, so the plaintiff’s first assertion is unacceptable.

3. Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment has been omitted" refers to an attack and defense method submitted by the parties, and where a judgment has not been indicated on the grounds of the judgment, it cannot be deemed that a judgment has been omitted even if the judgment was erroneous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Da44, Feb. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 92Da457, Apr. 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da457, Apr. 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da457, Apr. 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da457, Apr. 27, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 90Da60, Oct. 12, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do314, Dec. 28, 1983).

4. The plaintiff's third assertion does not constitute a ground for retrial under any subparagraph of Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, there is no reason to assert this point.

5. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for retrial of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)