Reasons for retrial and legal reconciliation under Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

For the purpose of paragraph (1) 8 of this Article, the term "when such judgment or administrative disposition is altered" means the time when such judgment or administrative disposition is altered retroactively, and not including the case where it is not retroactive.

Article 472(1)8, No. 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Dong-dong Kim

The Director General of Seoul Government

Seoul High Court Decision 61Do41 delivered on February 27, 1962

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

Since Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a civil or criminal judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition which forms the basis of a judgment shall be changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition, it is reasonable to interpret that the judgment or administrative disposition which forms the basis of the above judgment is changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition, and where the judgment or administrative disposition is changed retroactively, it shall not be any obstacle to the filing of another lawsuit on that ground, and it shall not be included in this case.

In this case, the judgment of the plaintiff in the previous suit was based on the same judgment as the plaintiff in the previous suit that recognized the fact that the defendant had already leased the real estate of this case to the non-party 1, and therefore, it constitutes Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act since he renounced the right of lease by means of legal compromise as alleged by the plaintiff in other lawsuit, such as the plaintiff in the previous suit, and thus, the above legal compromise is clear in light of the legal principles of judicial compromise that the plaintiff's assertion in the previous suit does not retroactively change the judgment or the administrative disposition. Therefore, it is reasonable to render the judgment that ruled that the plaintiff's assertion in the previous suit does not fall under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In this paper, there is no reason to conclude that the original judgment is merely an independent legal opinion, and there is no reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man