(a) The purport that it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a new trial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act;

(b) Purport of Article 7 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act;

A. The case where it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment that had been rendered prior to the filing of a new trial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where two final and conclusive judgments conflict with one another concerning the same case between

B. The purpose of Article 7 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act is to judge in a panel of two-thirds or more judges of the Supreme Court in a case where the Supreme Court modifies its opinion on the application of the interpretation of the Rules on Orders of the Constitution, which is held by the previous Supreme Court.

Pacific Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Uniform Trucking Truck Company

Supreme Court Decision 76Da492 Delivered on April 27, 1976

The litigation cost for retrial shall be dismissed. The litigation cost shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The grounds for retrial of the plaintiff's attorney for retrial are examined.

1. Point:

The case is when there is a final and conclusive judgment inconsistent with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a new trial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where two final and conclusive judgments conflict with each other with respect to the same content of the same case between the same parties. Thus, the plaintiff in the case of 75Da1657 of the party members cited in the arguments and the plaintiff in the case of 76Da492 of the party members who were subject to the new trial are different. Thus, even if the case is claimed for damages due to the same driving accident, it is clear that the above two cases are not between the same parties, and it is without merit.

2. Point:

The purpose of Article 7 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act is to revise the previous opinion on the application of the interpretation of the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules made by the Supreme Court as stated in the same Article. Thus, in the case of changing the legal judgment, it should be judged by a collegiate body of not less than 2/3 of all the Supreme Court judges in the case of changing the legal judgment. In this case, the related records are examined, and the judgment of the party members subject to the review is not to modify the legal judgment in the above 75Da1657, but to the purport of changing the legal judgment in the above 75Da1657, and it is different from the fact that the court of fact-finding in both cases is confirmed by the fact-finding court of both cases, which judged that the former was negligent by the defendant's driver, and therefore, the case subject to the review was not negligent in the case

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Judge)