Grounds for retrial of the so-called denial of judgment under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act and reconciliation in litigation

In a reconciliation in a lawsuit, there is no time to reverse the so-called judgment under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this cannot be considered as a ground for retrial.

Articles 206 and 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Madals

Man-hee

Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na379 delivered on February 13, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff for retrial are examined.

If a compromise in litigation is entered in the protocol, it is clear by Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act that the protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and the compromise in this lawsuit is established due to the procedural acts that terminate the lawsuit by mutual concession between the parties, and there is no judgment of the court. Therefore, it is clear that this protocol cannot be considered as a ground for retrial because it is a case where a decision on important matters that may affect the judgment as referred to in Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is omitted. Accordingly, it is evident that such a ground for retrial cannot be considered as a ground for retrial, and the court below's decision that the suit in this case cannot be dismissed under such opinion is legitimate, and it cannot be adopted to criticize the original judgment by avoiding the opposing opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)