The meaning of "when the judgment has been changed by a different trial, etc."

The term "when a judgment, etc. has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of a cause for retrial" means cases where a judgment has become legally binding, or a judgment, etc. which has become the basis of fact-finding in a final judgment has been changed by another judgment, etc. thereafter.

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1377 Decided January 28, 1965

Hanil Electric Co., Ltd. and one claimant-appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee

Patent Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office's retrial 4 trial ruling on May 29, 1981

The original adjudication shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office.

1. We examine the Appellant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

"When a civil or criminal judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition" as a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where a judgment or administrative disposition, such as a final judgment, legally binding force, or a judgment, which provides materials for fact-finding at the final judgment, has been changed by another judgment or administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1377 delivered on Jan. 28, 1965).

However, according to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, in the case of a trial for partial invalidation of trademark registration filed against the respondent and one other than the respondent, separately from the case of this case, the court below reversed the decision of the appellate court, and decided that the goods of the respondent are not the same goods as the goods of the designated goods of the trademark of this case, and changed the criteria for the judgment of the final decision of this case into the same kind. Thus, the court below decided that this constitutes the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, even after examining the record, there is no basis to acknowledge that the appellate trial ruling reversed by the above Supreme Court ruling was based on the legal binding decision of this case or that it was based on fact-finding data in the final decision of this case.

Therefore, even if the decision of the appellate court on the separate case was reversed by the Supreme Court decision, the decision of the case is not affected by the already established decision, and the decision on the same kind of the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case as the designated goods of the registered trademark of this case, which were decided on the grounds of the above decision, is different from the decision on the grounds of the final decision of this case, it cannot be a ground for retrial of the final decision of this case.

Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for retrial, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by determining the grounds that do not constitute grounds for retrial. Therefore, the argument on this point is justifiable.

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for Appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)