The meaning of "when the judgment conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act"

"When it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered before filing a new trial" under Article 422, Paragraph 1, Item 10 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to cases where the res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered before and between res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment subject to new trial and res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Administrator of the National Tax Service of Daejeon District Office

Defendant (Supplementary Intervenor) 1 and 123 others

Seoul High Court Decision 77No4 delivered on May 6, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiffs in review) and the supplementary intervenor.

The defendant (the plaintiff)'s ground of appeal is examined.

According to Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when the final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment is in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment," it is possible to file a lawsuit for retrial. "When it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment" means the cases where res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment and res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment subject to retrial conflict with each other, and it is reasonable to say that the parties concerned and the cases should be identical to each other for the purpose of res judicata. In this case, according to the facts established by the court below, the Seoul High Court Decision 69Gu35, which is the final and conclusive judgment prior to the "the final and conclusive judgment", is the plaintiff and the defendant are 13, and the object stated in the attached Table 2 list at the time of original and conclusive judgment is subject to the Farmland Reform Act, so it is not a farmland which belongs to the defendant's original decision, but a new and conclusive disposition for the plaintiff's new judgment is revoked 2.

Therefore, the above two cases cannot be viewed as falling under the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there is no conflict between the parties to the lawsuit and the subject matter and the subject matter are different between the two final and conclusive judgments, and thus, it cannot be viewed as falling under the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. The judgment of the court below which seems to have been made to the same purport is just and there

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)