A. The meaning of "absck for determination" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The meaning of "when it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment previously rendered" under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. The grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to a case where a court failed to render a judgment on a material fact that could have an influence on the judgment, notwithstanding the parties asserted or urged the investigation.

B. Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to cases where a final judgment conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the enforcement of Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to cases where the original judgment conflicts with res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on

A. Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Hu2 delivered on May 14, 1985, 80Nu290 delivered on December 23, 1980, 80Nu290 Delivered on February 22, 1983

Plaintiff

The Korea National University of Education

Gwangju District Court Decision 84Na6 delivered on November 9, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to a case where the court failed to render a judgment on a material fact that could have an influence on the judgment, notwithstanding the parties asserted or urged the investigation.

According to the records, since the defendant did not have asserted in the litigation procedure of the decision for retrial as to Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act as alleged, the decision of the court below is just and it cannot be viewed as a ground for retrial because there is no judgment as to it.

2. The term "when a final judgment conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to Article 422 (1) 10 of the above Act" refers to cases where the judgment subject to a final and conclusive judgment conflicts with res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment on the same case between the same parties who first rendered a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the party members cited in the theory of lawsuit do not have a judgment on Oct. 30, 1979 in a litigation case in which the original and the defendant is a party, and thus, the res judicata between the original and the defendant does not occur by the judgment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below does not constitute a final and conclusive judgment mentioned in this case, and therefore, the retrial cited in this purport is just and without merit, and there is no conflict with the same precedent as the theory of the lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)