The meaning of the omission of judgment on the important matters that may affect the judgment under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where a judgment is not indicated among the reasons for the judgment concerning an offence and defense that a party submitted in a lawsuit and has an influence on the judgment, and as long as the judgment has been made, the grounds for rejecting the party’s assertion may not be individually explained, or even if there were errors in the contents of the judgment, it shall not be deemed a deviation of judgment under the above Act.

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84No11 Decided May 27, 1986

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14488 delivered on May 1, 201

The director of the tax office

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu98 Delivered on May 27, 1986

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

Expenses for reexamination shall be borne by the plaintiff for reexamination.

The grounds for retrial shall be examined.

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when failing to state a judgment among the reasons for the judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment" refers to the attack and defense methods submitted by the parties, which affect the judgment. As long as the judgment was made, the grounds for rejecting the appellant's assertion cannot be individually explained, or even if the judgment was erroneous, it cannot be viewed as a failure to state a judgment as referred to in the above Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. As to interest accrued from the time deposit and installment savings, which are grounds for retrial, for which the judgment was rejected, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts that the interest that did not reach the time for realizing profits due to the violation of the rules of evidence and that it did not reach the time for realizing profits, the judgment of the court below which became subject to retrial contains the above facts that it did not constitute an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is justified that the interest accrued from the plaintiff's new construction or new construction of the imported fixed assets at the time for the next time of the plaintiff's new construction or new construction of the Act.

In addition, in light of the records, the attempted interest is recognized as having already arrived at the time limit, and even if there was a deviation from judgment such as the essay, the result of the judgment is not affected.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff for retrial is 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 on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)