The meaning of "when a judgment has been omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment"

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment is omitted" means the case where a judgment is not indicated on the means of attack and defense of the parties that affect the conclusion of the judgment, or the case where errors exist in the contents of such judgment shall not be included.

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da11 Decided November 30, 1984 delivered on June 11, 1974

Plaintiff

Intervenor succeeding

Korea

Attorney Cho Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the intervenor joining the defendant

Supreme Court Decision 79Da2068 Delivered on August 26, 1980

The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the supplementary intervenor (defendant).

The grounds for retrial of the intervenor joining the Plaintiff (Defendant) are examined.

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a party evades a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment" refers to the case where the party does not indicate any judgment among the reasons for the judgment regarding the matter that naturally affects the conclusion of the judgment by means of attack and defense that was submitted lawfully, and even if there were errors in the judgment, it shall not be deemed an omission of judgment as provided in the above Article of the Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 64Da11, Nov. 30, 1964; 73Da54, Jun. 11, 1974). In light of the reasoning for the judgment which is the object of the request for retrial in comparison with the appellate brief of the defendant and the defendant's assistant's grounds for appeal, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by disregarding the judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment on the grounds for appeal, since it is clearly stated that the grounds for the request for retrial, which is the grounds for appeal for retrial, or that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or misunderstanding of evidence.

Therefore, this case's petition for review is dismissed as without merit. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the supplementary intervenor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)