The meaning of "when a judgment has been rejected" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where the judgment is not indicated in the manner of offence and defense by the party which has an influence on the conclusion of the judgment, and as long as the judgment is made, it cannot be deemed a failure of judgment under the above Act, even if there was an error in the contents of the judgment, the reason leading to the judgment is not clearly stated, or the ground for rejecting the appellant's assertion is not individually explained.

Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da49 Decided June 9, 1981, 80Da30 Decided April 12, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 85Da30 Decided July 23, 1985

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu274 Delivered on September 13, 1983

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

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

1. First, we judge the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Where the Supreme Court amends its opinion on the application of laws previously held by the Supreme Court, it shall be tried at a collegiate body composed of not less than two-thirds of all the Supreme Court judges, and if a judgment is rendered by a panel composed of less than two-thirds of all the Supreme Court judges, it shall not constitute a judgment court under the law, and if there is any ground for retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 82Hun-13, Dec. 28, 1982). The same applies to the theory of lawsuit.

However, according to the records, the contents of the judgment for retrial in this case are erroneous in the misapprehension of facts due to the failure of the judgment of the court, the omission of judgment due to the violation of the rules of evidence, or the omission of reasons or the contradiction of reasons. However, from the conflicting point of view of the judgment of the court below, it cannot be adopted in all to independently criticize the determination of legitimate evidence and the fact-finding of the court, and there is no dispute between the parties as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 4290Da6920 delivered on December 18, 1958; Supreme Court Decision 65Da297 delivered on February 22, 196; Supreme Court Decision 97Da1679 delivered on September 16, 197; Supreme Court Decision 97Da1679 delivered on September 27, 196; Supreme Court Decision 97Da1679 delivered on June 16, 197).

2. The following grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be examined.

According to the reasons indicated in the records, the judgment subject to a retrial has an error of law in the omission of judgment, failure in reasoning, or failure in reasoning, as seen earlier, concerning the grounds for appeal that there is an illegality in the grounds for appeal, such as the plaintiff's theory of lawsuit, but this is inconsistent with the judgment of the court below, and it is clear that there is no omission of judgment as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act refers to the case where a judgment is not indicated on the means of attack and defense by the parties which have an influence on the conclusion of the judgment, and as long as such a judgment is made, it shall not be deemed a deviation of judgment under the above Act even if there is no error in the contents of the judgment, the reasons leading to the judgment, or the reasons leading to the judgment, or the reasons rejecting the appellant's assertion are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da49, Jun. 9, 1981; 80Da30, Apr. 12, 1983). Thus, all arguments can not be adopted.

3. Finally, we examine the plaintiff's remaining grounds for retrial.

Even though one of the witness of the court below was accused of a criminal complaint due to the fact of perjury (the plaintiff is based on the fact that it became final and conclusive) and the result of the judgment of a final appeal against the same employee ex officio from the same person was different from that of the court of final appeal, it is clear that the reason alone does not constitute any ground for final appeal under Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under the Administrative Litigation Act, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

4. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case 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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)