Whether a rejection of a judgment on the grounds for retrial alleged after the lapse of the period for filing a retrial has an impact on the result of the judgment (negative)

The grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act constitute separate grounds for retrial. As such, whether the period for filing a retrial complies with each of the above subparagraphs should be considered for each of the grounds for retrial. Thus, even if a lawsuit for retrial was filed within the period for filing a retrial, the lawsuit for retrial on the part of the grounds for retrial asserted only after the lapse of the period for filing a retrial cannot be dismissed. Thus, the grounds for rejection of

Articles 422 and 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below] The court below's decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Attorney Kim Yong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 89ReDa44 delivered on February 13, 1990

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

If the defendant (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the defendant 207) alleged that the evidence proving the representative authority of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff hereinafter) who was submitted to the case after the confirmation of the 88Da1453 case as a ground for retrial was forged or presented as a supporting evidence, and eventually, it constitutes a ground for lack of representative authority and litigation power because it was not proven as a ground for appeal as to the above 65Da1453 case, even though the defendant did not have any ground for appeal as to the above 65Da1453 case, it is not appropriate to determine that the above 88Da207 case cannot be a ground for retrial on the ground that it was already asserted and rejected as a ground for appeal as to the above ground for retrial. However, it is difficult to see it as a ground for retrial.

The reasoning of the instant judgment subject to a retrial is the same purport, and even in light of the grounds for retrial and comparison with the grounds for a retrial that the Defendant asserted in the instant judgment, there is no deviation from the determination as to the defect of power of representation or ex officio investigation among the Plaintiff type.

In addition, it is identical to the theory of lawsuit that the judgment for retrial did not specify the judgment on the assertion that there was an error in the law of Article 422 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, which was not a full bench required for modification of the precedents among the grounds for retrial of the case. However, since the grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act constitute separate grounds for retrial respectively, the determination of the period for filing a petition for retrial should also be made depending on the grounds for retrial under each of the above subparagraphs. According to the records of the above 88Reda207 of the party members and 89Reda44 of the party members, the defendant delivered the original copy of the 88Reda207 of the party members on June 21, 1989 and filed a lawsuit on July 20 of the same year, but the above grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act was asserted in the preparatory document on November 10, 1989, the above grounds for retrial cannot be dismissed.

Ultimately, the retrial of this case is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)