The purport of Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides “when a judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition on the basis of a judgment has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition” refers to cases where a judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, has been changed finally and retroactively by another judgment or administrative disposition, and where a final and conclusive judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of the judgment, has been changed retroactively. Therefore, the interpretation or judgment of the court on the legitimacy of administrative disposition, which is the basis of the judgment, has been made by a change in the case of another

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Da1045 Delivered on December 12, 1972, 80Da1210, 1211 Delivered on January 27, 1981

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 87Jinna8 delivered on July 1, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appellant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment or administrative disposition based on a judgment has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition" refers to cases where a judgment or administrative disposition based on which the judgment was based has been changed by another judgment or administrative disposition, and is finally and retroactively changed by another judgment or administrative disposition. Thus, as in this case, the court's interpretation or decision on the lawfulness of administrative disposition based on the premise of the judgment, as in this case in the following cases, does not constitute a case where a court's interpretation or decision on the lawfulness of administrative disposition based on the premise of the judgment has been made by a change of precedents in other cases (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da1045, Dec. 12, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1210, 1211, Jan. 27, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 200Da2845, Nov. 27, 1981).

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)