A. The meaning of “when a civil or criminal judgment, or any other judgment based on a judgment has been changed by another judgment” as a ground for a retrial under Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The case holding that although a summary order employed as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial was modified in an appellate court, it does not constitute a ground for retrial under Paragraph A

A. Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment of a civil or criminal case, or any other trial on the basis of a judgment has been changed by another trial," which is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, "where a judgment has become legally binding, or a judgment which has provided data for fact-finding in the final judgment has been changed by another trial thereafter." In recognition of "a judgment which became data for fact-finding in the final judgment," it is not determined solely on the formal point that the judgment has been cited as evidence in the final judgment, but it should be determined by examining whether the judgment affects the

B. The case holding that if a summary order, which was adopted as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, was modified at the appellate court, but the remaining evidence except the above summary order, could sufficiently establish the judgment subject to a retrial, and the above summary order was merely a difference in the legal judgment, it cannot be deemed that the judgment constituting the basis for the fact-finding of the judgment subject to a retrial was changed by another trial, and thus, it does not constitute the ground for retrial as referred to in the above

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu42 delivered on May 11, 1982 (Gong1982,568) (Gong1982,568). Supreme Court Decision 81Nu194 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983,218) (Gong198,278) Decided December 8, 1987

Plaintiff Kim-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Civil taxi Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Rena394 delivered on March 29, 1991

The judgment below is reversed, and the request for retrial is dismissed.

All expenses of a retrial suit shall be borne by the defendant.

Of the grounds of appeal, we examine the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for retrial.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the judgment subject to a retrial was based on macroficial evidence and the record of the judgment subject to a retrial by: (a) the Seoul District Court rendered that: (b) the summary order (Evidence A No. 6-419) was adopted as evidence; and (c) the collective agreement of the Defendant company provides that, if employees are detained due to an accident, the surveillance shall be conducted from the date of detention to the date of temporary retirement; and (d) if the grounds for temporary retirement cease to exist, the employee may immediately return to his original position upon the lapse of ten (10) days after the expiration of the period of temporary retirement (Article 18(3)); (c) the Plaintiff, who served as a taxi driver of the Defendant company, was detained due to occupational negligence on August 14, 1987; and (d) the Plaintiff’s representative director, who was sentenced to punishment for ten (10) months immediately after the withdrawal on April 23, 1988; and (e) the Defendant company did not request the Plaintiff to be reinstated within three (30) months after his dismissal.

2. "When a judgment of a civil or criminal case, or any other trial on the basis of a judgment has been changed by another trial," which is a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, means where the judgment has a legally binding force, or where a trial which became a material for fact-finding in the final judgment has been changed by another trial thereafter (see Supreme Court Decision 81Hu42 delivered on May 11, 1982), and in recognition of "a trial which became a material for fact-finding in a final and conclusive judgment", it shall not be determined by the formal fact that the judgment was cited as a material for fact-finding in the final and conclusive judgment, but it shall be determined by examining whether the judgment affects the fact-finding of the final and conclusive judgment

3. However, according to the records, when the above reasons for a summary order are terminated pursuant to Article 14 of the collective agreement of the defendant company, the defendant company's representative director of the defendant company did not restore the plaintiff to his original position immediately, despite the fact that he did not submit in writing the plaintiff's restoration of his original status, and together with the fact that such an act constitutes a crime violating Article 46-3 of the Trade Union Act. The above Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 89No5642, which changed the above summary order, did not change the above summary order and the fact-finding, but if the plaintiff did not express his intention of reinstatement in writing on the ground of the above fact-finding but did not do so in writing, it is nothing more than a different determination of law that it cannot be deemed as a violation of collective agreement even if the plaintiff was dismissed for this reason, and the judgment of dismissal due to the above reasons cannot be seen as a new summary order or a new summary order, which cannot be seen as a legitimate ground for a new summary order, as it did not affect the above judgment of the Seoul Criminal Court.

4. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the grounds for a retrial, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are sufficient to protect the party members by the record, and the remaining grounds for appeal premised on the existence of the grounds for a retrial shall be reversed, and the total expenses for a retrial shall be borne by the losing party, and this decision is delivered with the assent of

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)