Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, means "when a judgment is omitted with respect to a material fact that may affect the judgment"

Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Jada415 Decided January 28, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Ja20 Decided December 8, 2006

Dole Cultural Institute (Attorney Ho-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du702 Decided March 24, 2011

The request for retrial is dismissed. The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the intermediate confirmation plaintiff and the re-adjudication plaintiff).

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

1. "Where a judgment is omitted with respect to important matters that may affect the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to the case where a party's attack and defense submitted in a lawsuit and has failed to clarify the judgment in the reasoning of the judgment with respect to those that may affect the judgment, and as long as the judgment is rendered, it does not constitute omission of judgment under the above provision of the Civil Procedure Act even if the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting the parties' allegations are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da415, Jan. 28, 2005; 2005Da20, Dec. 8, 2006).

Examining the reasoning for the judgment subject to a retrial in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it can be deemed that the purport of the judgment subject to a retrial is to exclude all the arguments that the Plaintiff (Intermediate as an intermediate confirmation Plaintiff, and a review Plaintiff) omitted from the judgment. Accordingly, there is no omission of judgment, which is a ground for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 9

2. Examining the grounds for a judgment subject to a retrial, it is evident that the lower court included the purport of rejecting the argument in the grounds for appeal that the lower court rendered interpretation and judgment contrary to several Supreme Court decisions by the Plaintiff (halfway confirmation Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for a retrial). Since such determination is justifiable, it cannot be said that the judgment subject to a retrial has interpreted laws contrary to the previous Supreme Court decisions or changed opinions on statutory interpretation and application, and therefore, it cannot be said that there were no errors in the composition of the court of the judgment subject to a retrial, which was rendered by a panel comprised of not less than two-thirds of all Justices, which is comprised of four Justices, not less than two-thirds of the Supreme Court decisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da218, Jul. 10, 2008). In addition, examining records, it is difficult to deem that there exists any grounds for a retrial

3. Therefore, the retrial shall be dismissed, and the costs of the retrial shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)