[근로조건위반에인한손해배상청구재심신청기각결정무효확인][공1990.11.15.(884),2180]
Whether the judgment subject to a retrial or the illegality of the previous judgment subject to a retrial can be a ground for retrial (negative)
The grounds for asserting that an original judgment or a previous judgment was erroneous in the original judgment cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial against the original judgment.
Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Lee Jin-jin
The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission
Council of Representatives of Gamba apartment occupants
Supreme Court Decision 89Nu120 Delivered on February 13, 1990
The request for retrial is dismissed.
The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff (the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) indicated the Supreme Court Decision 89Nu120 Decided October 13, 1989, 89, No. 89Nu52 Decided October 13, 1989, which dismissed the request for retrial based on the judgment subject to retrial, as the party members dismissed the request for retrial, and made the request for retrial of this case by the judgment subject to retrial, and therefore, it is examined whether there exists the grounds for retrial.
A request for retrial in an administrative litigation may be filed only when there are grounds for retrial under Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.
In light of the records, the judgment subject to a retrial is determined that there was no deviation from the judgment, such as the plaintiff's principal, on October 13, 1989, by Supreme Court Decision 89Nu52 Decided October 13, 1989, which is the judgment subject to a retrial, on the ground that the plaintiff's judgment cannot be deemed to have neglected the judgment as to the grounds for a retrial, which is based on the premise that there
Therefore, in the judgment subject to a retrial, there may not be a deviation from a judgment falling under “when there is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act,” which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the grounds for asserting that there is an error in the judgment subject to a retrial or in the previous judgment subject to
Therefore, the retrial of this case is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)