The meaning of "when a judgment was omitted on important matters that might affect the judgment" as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"When a judgment was omitted on important matters that could affect the judgment" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the attack and defense method submitted by a party in a lawsuit and that has an influence on the judgment, and the judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment. As long as the judgment is rendered, even if the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting the parties' claims are not individually explained, it shall not be deemed a deviation from the judgment under the above Article.

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 95 Jae-Ma7 Decided November 23, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 94Da31 Decided December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 464) Supreme Court Decision 96Da165 Decided February 28, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 97Da278 Decided February 24, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 845)

Gold Uniform Co., Ltd.

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Supreme Court Decision 99Reda890, 906 Delivered on February 25, 200

The request for retrial shall be dismissed. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff and the plaintiff for retrial).

The grounds for retrial shall be considered.

The purport of the grounds for the request for retrial of this case asserted by the defendant (hereinafter "the defendant") is that the judgment of the Supreme Court 9Da40319, 40326 (Counterclaim) on November 26, 1999 did not make a concrete decision as to the defendant's assertion that the defendant violated the Supreme Court precedents, and thus, the defendant requested a retrial against the above Supreme Court decision. The judgment for retrial of this case also did not specify the Supreme Court precedents stated by the defendant, and it can be known that "the above Supreme Court decision dismissed the defendant's appeal on the ground that the defendant's above argument cannot be found to have any interpretation inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedents," and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant has neglected the judgment since it did not deviate from the judgment of the important matters affecting the judgment, which constitutes the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act."

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment," which are grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to cases where a party’s defense means of attack and defense presented in a lawsuit and that have an influence on the judgment, and the judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, and as long as the judgment was rendered, it cannot be deemed a deviation from the judgment under the above Act, even if the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting the party’s claims are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31, Dec. 22, 1995; 97Da278, Feb. 24, 1998). According to the reasoning for the judgment subject to retrial in this case, the judgment in this case clearly stated the defendant’s argument that there is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the

Therefore, the defendant's request for retrial 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)