If an attorney exists, the date the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial shall begin;

In a litigation case in which an attorney has been served, if the judgment was served on the attorney, the attorney should have known of the omission of the judgment at the time of being served, barring any special circumstances. In a case in which the attorney is aware of the omission of judgment, the party to the lawsuit shall be deemed to have known of the omission of judgment, barring special circumstances. Thus, the period of a retrial suit for the reason that there was a omission of judgment on the final judgment should be calculated from the time when the attorney is served with the judgment.

Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da167 delivered on June 30, 1963

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu162 delivered on June 28, 1983

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the litigation of this case.

As in this case, a lawsuit for a retrial on the ground that a party has omitted a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment subject to a retrial shall be brought within 30 days from the date on which the party becomes aware of the grounds for the retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive, and in a lawsuit in which an attorney was served on the attorney, barring any special circumstances, the attorney was aware of the omission of the judgment at the time when the judgment was served. In a case where the attorney becomes aware of the omission of judgment, barring special circumstances, the party to the lawsuit shall be deemed to have known of the omission of judgment. Thus, the period of a lawsuit for a retrial on the ground that there was a omission of judgment on the final and conclusive judgment shall be calculated from the time when the attorney was served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da167, Jun. 20, 1963; 80Da11, Jul. 22, 1980).

According to the records, it is evident that the instant judgment subject to retrial was served on the attorney of the Plaintiff for a retrial on July 11, 1983, and barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to have known of the deviation from the determination of the judgment subject to retrial, which is the grounds for retrial, alleged in the instant lawsuit at that time. Meanwhile, the instant lawsuit for retrial was brought on January 30, 1984, and is apparent in the record, and thus, the instant lawsuit for retrial was an inappropriate lawsuit filed after the peremptory period for filing the petition for retrial expires, and thus, dismissed without examining

Therefore, the suit of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of the new trial shall be assessed against the plaintiff at its own expense, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)