Cases where the peremptory period for filing a retrial is too excessive;

Unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was aware on the day when the original copy of the judgment was served on him/her, as the grounds for retrial, such as the omission of judgment claimed by the plaintiff

Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Re-Defendant)

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Supreme Court Decision 65Da751 Decided June 22, 1965

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

ex officio scamba,

This case's petition for retrial was filed on the ground that the principal source omitted from a judgment on important matters that could affect the judgment rendered on June 22, 1965, and the head of the gushe reached August 3, 1965. It is evident that the original copy of the judgment in the above case's appeal was served on July 3, 1965 to the plaintiff (No. 231 of the original record). Thus, unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was aware on the date when the original copy of the judgment was delivered to him, and in this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was aware on the date when the original copy of the judgment was delivered to him, unless there were special circumstances. Accordingly, the plaintiff in this case's petition for retrial was clearly raised after the peremptory period of Article 426 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is improper and dismissed as an unlawful lawsuit.

Therefore, the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro