beta
Main Issues
The meaning of "when a judgment has been rejected" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act and the omission of judgment on the ex officio investigation falls under this case.
Summary of Decision
The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where judgment is not indicated among the grounds for judgment as to what naturally affect judgment as a means of attack and defense that has been legitimately submitted in a lawsuit. The grounds for retrial for ex officio matters may be the grounds for retrial only when the parties urged the court to conduct an investigation.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Order 85Hun-Ba43 dated August 27, 1985 (Gong1985, 1305) dated November 27, 1990
Plaintiff (Plaintiff for Retrial) and quasi-examination applicant
Park Jae-il
Defendant (Re-Defendant) and quasi-Appellants
Manam-leap
Intervenor joining the Defendant
Korea Exchange Bank
Quasi-Review Decision
Supreme Court Order 89Meu21316 Dated November 28, 1989
Text
The quasi-examination application is dismissed.
Reasons
The reasons for applying for quasi-examination (including the reasons for supplement) of the plaintiff (the applicant for quasi-examination, the plaintiff hereinafter) shall be considered.
The grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where the parties did not indicate the judgment among the reasons for the judgment on the facts that naturally affect the judgment due to an attack or defense which is legitimately submitted in the lawsuit by the parties, and the grounds for retrial regarding the matters to be examined ex officio may be limited to the case where the parties urged the court to investigate. Thus, even if the explanation of the reasons for the decision subject to quasi-Review is examined in comparison with the reasons for the plaintiff's request for a final appeal, it cannot be viewed that there was a deviation of judgment as mentioned above. Thus, the plaintiff's request for
Therefore, the application for quasi-deliberation is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)