The meaning of "when a judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment, which is a cause for a 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 affecting the judgment" refers to the method of attack and defense submitted by a party in a lawsuit and which have an influence on the judgment, the judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment. As long as the judgment was made, even if the judgment contains errors in the judgment, and the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds rejecting the parties' claims are not individually explained, it cannot be deemed as a deviation from the judgment under the above

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da6528, 6535 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992, 766), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu31 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong1993Ha, 2153 delivered on December 22, 1995) (Gong1993Ha, 2153 delivered on December 22, 1995)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Lee Young-con et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 93Da2827 delivered on December 10, 1993

The request for retrial shall be dismissed. Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiff).

The grounds for retrial by the defendant (limited to the plaintiff for retrial, hereinafter referred to as the defendant) are examined.

1. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion that the grounds for retrial of this case were as follows. In other words, the Defendant’s ground for appeal against the judgment of the lower court subject to retrial of this case is as follows: (i) acknowledged that the lower court made a promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate amounting to KRW 240,000 at KRW 98,000 as of March 30, 198 by the Plaintiff (the Defendant, hereinafter, the Plaintiff) and the Defendant, as of March 30, 198, violates the empirical rule; (ii) at the lower court’s trial, the Defendant had the Plaintiff keep the amount column and the date of completion of the reservation as of the date of completion of the sale and purchase without the Defendant’s consent, and the lower court did not state the part of each of the above public sectors as to the judgment subject to retrial of this case without the Defendant’s consent, and thus, did not err in its judgment as to the judgment subject to retrial of Article 42(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The phrase "when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the original judgment, which is the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act" refers to the case where the judgment was not indicated in the reasoning of the judgment as to the attack and defense which was submitted by the parties to the lawsuit, and as long as the judgment was made, it cannot be viewed as a deviation from the judgment under the above Act even if the reasons leading to that judgment were not clearly stated or the reasons for rejecting the allegations by the parties were not clearly explained individually, since it is hard to find that there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal reasoning of the judgment below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to "the grounds for retrial" as stated in Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "the grounds for appeal No. 20 of the judgment below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that there were no grounds for appeal No. 1 as to the judgment subject to retrial, which the judgment had been rejected the plaintiff's reasoning for appeal No. 16.

3. Therefore, the defendant's request for retrial 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 Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)