logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2012. 02. 09. 선고 2010재두356 판결
재심 본안 판단을 하지 아니하였더라도 판결에 미칠 중요한 판단을 누락하였다고 볼 수 없음[국승]
Title

Requirements to constitute grounds for retrial other than those to constitute grounds for retrial

Summary

(1) Where a non-prosecution disposition is rendered on the grounds that there is no right to institute a public prosecution, (2) The meaning of the time when a civil or criminal judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition on the basis of a judgment has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition.

Cases

2010du356 Disposition of revocation of imposition of global income tax, etc.

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

XX

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Judgment Subject to Judgment

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du280 Decided October 14, 2010

Imposition of Judgment

February 9, 2012

Text

The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds for retrial are considered.

If it is impossible to make a judgment due to a defect in the requirements for a retrial suit, the suit for retrial shall be dismissed as unlawful. In such a case, even if there is no judgment on the merits, it cannot be deemed that “when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment is omitted” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du219, Feb. 10, 201).

According to the records, the judgment subject to retrial was dismissed by deeming that the grounds for a retrial by the plaintiff (the plaintiff) does not constitute legitimate grounds for retrial. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, even if the judgment subject to retrial did not make a judgment on the merits, it cannot be deemed that the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment, and thus, the argument on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the retrial costs are dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow