The meaning of "salary deviation" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment has been avoided" refers to the time when a judgment has not been indicated among the reasons for the judgment concerning the attack and defense method submitted by the parties in the lawsuit, which affect the judgment, and as long as such judgment exists, the grounds for rejecting the appellant's assertion may not be individually explained, or even if there were errors in the contents of the judgment, it shall not be deemed a deviation from the above judgment.

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Re-Defendant)

Defendant (Attorney Shin Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1169 Delivered on October 27, 1980

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds for retrial of the defendant (limited to the plaintiff for retrial and the defendant) are examined.

In determining the grounds of appeal by the original judgment (hereinafter referred to as the "original judgment"), the theory of lawsuit contains an error of law, such as the theory of lawsuit, in determining the grounds of appeal by the original judgment, ".......... the court below's measures are acceptable, and the measures are acceptable, and there is no error such as the theory of lawsuit, in the preparation of evidence that passed....... record, as a comparison with the records, the court below stated that the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be an explanation of the reason why is just, and it cannot be an explanation of why it would be a reason that it would be an important matter affecting the judgment, and its ".........., the court below's ruling that the plaintiff argued that the tenant's obligation to return the security deposit to the tenant at the time was taken over by the plaintiff, but this is also the same as the fact that the defendant did not assert it in the original judgment."

However, Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where a party fails to indicate a judgment among the reasons for the judgment in regard to an attack and defense that may affect the judgment as a means of attack and submitted in court proceedings. As long as the judgment was made, the grounds for rejecting the appellant's assertion may not be individually explained, or even if there were errors in the judgment, it shall not be deemed a deviation from the judgment as referred to in the above Article. In light of the records in this case, it is recognized that there was a ground for rejecting the appellant's assertion. However, it is difficult to view that the original judgment was the same as the theory of the lawsuit, but it is difficult to view that the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had taken over the obligation to return the lease deposit of the occupant of this case until the original judgment was made, and that the theory of the warning becomes a cause for a retrial as referred to in the above judgment in different opinions in

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

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)