Whether two final and conclusive judgments, which conflict with one another, constitute grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, if the parties or causes of the claims conflict with one another (negative)

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a new trial" refers to cases where two final and conclusive judgments conflict with res judicata in relation to the same case between the same parties, and where the two judgments are similar, if the parties or the causes of the claims differ, such cases shall be deemed a separate case.

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 16 (Gong1990, 403) (Law No.1990, Dec. 26, 1989)

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Minister of Government Administration

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu274 Delivered on September 13, 1983

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

1. First, according to the records on the assertion that the plaintiff (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the same hereinafter) did not constitute a judgment court under the law claiming the grounds for retrial (Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act), and on the allegation of omission of judgment (Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act), the plaintiff filed a petition for retrial after the peremptory period of 30 days from the time when it can be deemed that the plaintiff was aware of the grounds for retrial, and thus, the part of the lawsuit for retrial of this case, which provided the above two grounds for retrial before determining the grounds for retrial, is unlawful and thus, it cannot be permitted.

2. Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “When it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a new trial” refers to cases where two final and conclusive judgments conflict with res judicata effect as to the same case between the same parties. If the parties or causes for the claim are different even if the two cases are similar, they should be deemed a separate case (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu116, Dec. 26, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 85No6, Feb. 11, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu504, Apr. 26, 1983). Reviewing the records and reasons for the judgment subject to a new trial, the judgment subject to a new trial is different from the final and conclusive judgment of the lawsuit rendered prior to the judgment (Supreme Court Decision 82Nu504, Apr. 26, 1983). Thus, even if the two judgments have different conclusions with respect to similar cases, this does not constitute grounds for a new trial under the above provision.

The Supreme Court precedents of the theory of the lawsuit cannot be appropriate for this case, with different facts and facts. All the arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, the request for retrial of this case is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)