(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.4.4.선고 2018재구합42 판결

The judgment of retrial shall be revoked. The judgment rendered on October 26, 2017 in the case subject to retrial is revoked. The original written judgment on the adjudication (2013 Ruling 2055) rendered by the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee (Defendant re-adjudication) is confirmed to be invalid in accordance with the formal and procedural illegality. The original written judgment rendered by the Defendant (Defendant re-adjudication) Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, the decision made on non-payment of survivors' benefits and funeral benefits of the Defendant (Defendant re-adjudication) and the original written decision made by the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (Defendant re-adjudication) is invalid

Reasons

1. The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") asserts two grounds for retrial as follows.

A. The ruling by the Review Committee on Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance for Defendant (Defendant) is null and void due to the existence of a formal, procedural, and content defect. As such, in the ruling on review premised on a null and void ruling, there exists a ground for retrial when a civil or criminal judgment, or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which serves as the basis of the ruling, was changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition.

B. The judgment subject to a retrial was not only premised on the judgment of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Reexamination Committee, but also on the premise that the subject matter of the claim was not specified in the judgment, and omitted judgment on the assertion or evidence. Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial exists when the judgment was omitted on the important matters that may affect the judgment under Article 452 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act - the grounds for a retrial are omitted.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 456(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within a peremptory period of 30 days from the date when the party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after

B. On the basis of the foregoing provision, the health department, the original copy of the judgment on retrial served on the Plaintiff on November 2, 2017, and the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment on November 9, 2017. However, on November 29, 2017, the fact that the judgment on retrial issued an order to dismiss the petition of appeal on November 29, 2017, and that the judgment on retrial became final and conclusive on December 12, 2017 is significant in this court. The Plaintiff was aware of both grounds for retrial at the time when the Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the judgment on the judgment subject to retrial. (1) Accordingly, the instant lawsuit on retrial was filed after November 2, 2017, which became final and conclusive as the judgment subject to retrial after the Plaintiff became aware of the grounds for retrial, and the Plaintiff was not subject to the restriction on the signature and seal of the judge under Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s signature and seal of the judgment on the ground that it was unlawful.

However, there is no evidence to accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and even if there exists a reason for the Plaintiff’s assertion, the provision of the period of retrial is still applied. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.