A. Whether a cause for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act constitutes a cause for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, where no determination on the merits is made due to a

B. Whether grounds for retrial under subparagraph 1 of the same Article constitute grounds for retrial as to ex officio matters not asserted or urged by the parties;

A. Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a judgment is omitted on important matters affecting the conclusion of the judgment because of the lack of legal requirements and the case is judged on the ground of the lack of legal requirements, it refers to the failure of judgement from among the grounds of the judgment as to matters which naturally affect the conclusion of the judgment by the means of attack and defense which have been submitted lawfully by the parties in the lawsuit. In the case where it is impossible to make a judgment on the merits due to a defect in legal requirements, the lawsuit shall be dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, and the judgment on the merits cannot be made on the merits. In such a case, it shall not be deemed that there is no judgment on the merits, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that

B. “Important matters affecting the judgment” under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to matters to be ex officio. However, even if the party did not determine the ex officio investigation that was asserted by him or not urged the investigation, it does not constitute grounds for retrial under the above Act.

Administrative Litigation Act (Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act) Article 8(2)

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da2913 decided Feb. 23, 1971 (No. 1983,418) dated Dec. 29, 1982 (Gong1983,418) 82Mo19 decided Feb. 23, 197

Plaintiff

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu4502 Delivered on December 28, 1993

The request for retrial shall be dismissed. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The gist of the grounds for the plaintiff's application for reexamination is that there is a defect in the judgment subject to a retrial, which leads to an important statement of grounds for appeal affecting the conclusion of the judgment and ex officio examination.

In the case of determining a case on the grounds that there is no defect in the litigation requirements and therefore, the court does not indicate any judgment among the reasons for the judgment as to the important matters that affect the conclusion of the judgment in Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. In the case of determining a case on the grounds of the defect in the litigation requirements, it refers to the means of attack and defense which the parties submitted lawfully and affect the conclusion of the judgment. In the case where the judgment cannot be made on the merits due to a defect in the litigation requirements, the lawsuit shall be dismissed on the grounds that it is unlawful, and the judgment on the merits cannot be made on the merits. In such a case, the judgment on the merits cannot be deemed to constitute a failure of the so-called judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da88, Jun. 1

According to the records, in the judgment subject to a retrial, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's ground of appeal against the judgment in the case No. 90Gu5599 delivered on January 14, 1993 was renewed on the 13th hearing date of the court below. Thus, the appeal that there was an error in the procedure of renewal is not justified. In light of Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which the Seoul High Court decided to deliver a legitimate substitute area among the defendant's development recompense land and reserved land, cannot be permitted under the current Administrative Litigation Act. Since the plaintiff's claim of this case, which the plaintiff's land substitution disposition was partially cancelled or cancelled after the public notice of a replotting disposition became effective, the plaintiff's remaining ground of appeal cannot be viewed as legitimate since it did not affect the plaintiff's decision as to the ground of appeal No. 2 which did not affect the plaintiff's ground of appeal since the plaintiff's remaining ground of appeal as to the plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 2, which did not affect the above decision.

In addition, Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "important matters that may affect the judgment shall not be considered as a matter of ex officio investigation: Provided, That even if the party did not determine the matter of ex officio investigation that was asserted by or not urged to be investigated, it does not constitute a ground for retrial under the above Article of the Act (see Supreme Court Order 82Hun-Ga19, Dec. 29, 1982). Thus, even if there are important matters that are not specified in the above grounds for appeal, such as the theory of lawsuit, and that are matters that are ex officio investigation that are not specified in the above grounds for appeal, and that there are important matters that may affect the conclusion of the judgment, it shall not be considered as

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)