A. Grounds for a retrial where a party lost without any negligence in a lawsuit to win

B. Whether there exists a ground for a retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act on a judgment of the former where a judgment of civil court that rendered a different judgment becomes final and conclusive after the judgment of the administrative litigation case becomes final

A. Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides for the grounds for a retrial, does not stipulate the grounds for filing a lawsuit for a retrial against a final and conclusive subordinate judgment, and cannot be deemed as an example thereof. Even if the party who filed a retrial loses the judgment subject to a retrial without negligence by the party concerned, the grounds for retrial cannot be deemed as grounds for a retrial

B. The grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to a case where the res judicata of a judgment that is the object of a retrial conflicts with that of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment that was rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive is inconsistent with that of a judgment that became final and conclusive prior to the final and conclusive judgment. As such, even if a civil judgment that made a different judgment after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial are different, and there is no room for a retrial in

(a) Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act;

Attorney Lee Byung-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of Gwangju Tax Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Re-Gu30 decided August 22, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which provides for the grounds for a retrial shall not be deemed an example of the grounds for filing a lawsuit for a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment, and the same applies to the case where the party who files a petition for a retrial loses the judgment subject to a retrial without negligence by the party concerned.

In addition, by the judgment of the Gwangju High Court of 88Na1379 case, the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") revealed that the non-party 1 (the plaintiff 2, 2, 21-1, 21-2 (each steam copy), and 22-2 of the Nos. 20 are forged or altered, or this constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the Act, on the grounds that the non-party 1 (the plaintiff 2, 2, and 21-1, 21-1, 21-2 (each steam copy) was added to the plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial. Accordingly, the argument is without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

Even if the facts in this case are the same as the theory of lawsuit, evidence No. 3-2 (the complaint) cannot be deemed to be a judgment or other administrative disposition as provided in Article 422 (1) 8 of the Act, and even if the ruling of the case No. 88Na1379 of the Gwangju High Court is the same as the theory of lawsuit, the above evidence No. 3-2 cannot be deemed to have changed by another trial, and the ground for retrial as provided in Article 422 (1) 8 of the Act cannot be inferred or expanded even in this case. The argument is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

In light of the records, even though the plaintiff asserted in the complaint of the case subject to review that the deceased was the wife in Japan, and that the plaintiff is the only heir of the deceased and another co-inheritors, such as the theory of lawsuit, the decision that the judgment subject to review was recognized as having died without being left as the deceased's bereaved family as the deceased's bereaved family member, and that there was no counter-proof, should be deemed to be rejected by the plaintiff's rejection of the above assertion, and there was no separate reference as to whether there was the heir other than the plaintiff in the judgment subject to review as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Act. There is no reason

With respect to the fourth point:

Article 422(1)10 of the Act provides that a cause for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Act is a provision for resolving conflicts between res judicata of a judgment, and “when it conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to a judgment to institute a new trial” refers to cases where res judicata of a judgment that is the subject of a new trial is determined before that final and conclusive, conflicting with that of res judicata of a judgment that became final and conclusive, and thus, even if a civil judgment (Seoul High Court 8Na1379) in a lawsuit that rendered a judgment different from that of a judgment subject to new trial becomes final and conclusive after that judgment to be determined becomes final and conclusive, the

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)