If a petition for review contains an erroneous indication of the judgment to be reviewed, the measures of the court

In a case where an appellate court filed a lawsuit for retrial with the Supreme Court by asserting that the evidence employed by the appellate court's judgment was forged as to a case on which the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits was stated as a judgment subject to retrial, if it is evident by its assertion that the grounds for retrial pertains to the appellate court's judgment or by its own litigation record, the intent of the plaintiff for retrial is the subject of the appellate court's judgment. However, it is reasonable to transfer it to

Article 424 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Meu3442 Decided April 16, 1984 (Gong1984, 589) (Gong1984, 1989) (Gong1984, 1015) (Gong1989, 1779) Decided October 27, 1989

Plaintiff (Re-Defendant)

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da9283 delivered on June 28, 1994

The case is transferred to the collegiate division of the Seoul Civil Court.

In a case where the appellate court ex officio examined the case where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits and stated that the evidence employed by the appellate court's judgment was forged, and filed a lawsuit for retrial to party members, the grounds for retrial are related to the appellate court's judgment. However, if it is evident by its assertion itself or the record of trial, if the grounds for retrial are related to the appellate court's judgment, the intention of the plaintiff for retrial is subject to the appellate court's judgment, and submitted to the appellate court's appellate court's appellate court's appellate court's appellate court's appellate court's appellate court's judgment. Thus, it is reasonable to transfer the case to the appellate court's appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision

According to the petition of the retrial and the records of the lawsuit in this case, if the collegiate division of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Civil Aviation District Court rendered a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff (the plaintiff) against the defendant (the plaintiff) as an appellate court, and the defendant appealed against this judgment and filed an appeal (the party member 94Da9283). The appeal was dismissed on June 28, 1994, which became final and conclusive on which the judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 1994. Accordingly, the defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial in this case on July 21, 1994 by stating that the contract accepted as evidence for fact-finding in the appellate court was forged or falsified or that the above party member was false. Thus, if it is evident that the grounds for retrial asserted by the defendant in the grounds for retrial are related to the appellate court judgment, the plaintiff's intent to file an appeal for retrial is the subject matter of the judgment of the appellate court, but it shall be submitted to the party member by erroneously stating the indication of the retrial in the petition for retrial.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to transfer this case to the appellate court which is the jurisdictional court for retrial.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)