Main Issues
Judgment subject to review in a lawsuit for retrial and “judgments before trial” in Article 37 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Summary of Judgment
The term "pre-trial trial" as referred to in Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to a lower court's judgment on the objection case, and it does not correspond to the judgment subject to a retrial in the litigation in the retrial, so even if the judge involved in the judgment subject to a retrial participates in the trial of the case subject to it,
[Reference Provisions]
Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 37 subparag. 5 of the Civil Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Order 71Hun-Ga27 Dated May 11, 1971 79Hun-Ga7 Dated November 27, 1979
New Secretary-General
Applicant
Text
The motion of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the application of this case was that the judge of the Supreme Court was involved in the decision of 86 U.S. 1 case, which was the case subject to a review of 86 U.S. 3 case, which was a party member, and thus, it was the case at which the appeal was filed, and thus, the above 86 U. 3
However, the "pre-trial trial" referred to in Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to a lower court's judgment on the appeal case, and it does not constitute a judgment subject to a retrial in the lawsuit for a retrial. Thus, even if a judge involved in the trial subject to a retrial participates in the trial of the case subject to it, it cannot be a ground for exclusion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da27, May 11, 1971; 78Ma147, Jul. 6, 19
Therefore, the application of this case based on the premise that the participation in the trial subject to review in the trial subject to review was constituted when it was involved in the previous trial in the above Article of this Act is groundless.
Therefore, the motion of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)