A. The case holding that the grounds for retrial under Paragraph (1) cannot be acknowledged solely on the ground that the non-guilty disposition by a prosecutor against an offender of a traffic accident was revoked as a result of a re-investigation by a petition and that the perpetrator was prosecuted and convicted, but the conviction became final and conclusive, on the grounds that the non-suspect disposition was actually considered in the judgment subject to a judgment for retrial in the claim for damages caused by the traffic accident

A. "When a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of a judgment, has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition" as a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of the judgment, is legally binding, or where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of fact-finding in the final judgment, has been changed finally and retroactively by another judgment or administrative disposition, and the submission of materials for fact-finding in this context refers to the case where the judgment, etc., was adopted as evidence in the fact-finding of the final judgment and it is likely that the

B. The case holding that in a case where a public prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition is not legally binding on the judgment subject to a retrial, and the victim filed a lawsuit on the ground of the traffic accident, and the court of first instance accepted the above non-prosecution disposition and the evidentiary materials as sufficient evidence, and thus, the court of appeal rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that the victim's traffic signal violation was not caused by the perpetrator, and the appellate court rendered a partial winning judgment (the review judgment) on the ground that the perpetrator did not violate the signal signal violation, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that there was some negligence in cross-sectioning, and the judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that there was a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and that the perpetrator was indicted and the judgment became final and conclusive, the case held that there is no ground for retrial under paragraph (1) on the ground that the non-prosecution disposition is not a legally binding force on the judgment subject to a retrial, and it cannot be deemed that the non-prosecution disposition was the basis of the judgment subject to a retrial, and therefore, the non-prosecution disposition is not based on the judgment.

Article 422(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Hu42 delivered on May 11, 1982 (Gong1982, 568) (Gong1988, 278), Supreme Court Decision 91Da13694 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2248)

Park Byung-pa et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Hanyang Passenger Transport Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Rena166 delivered on May 31, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 17:5, 1987, the court below found the above non-party 1 guilty on the ground that the non-party 2 was found guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 was not guilty on the ground that the prosecutor's non-party 4 was not guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 was not guilty on the ground that the non-party 2 was not guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 was found guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 was not guilty on the ground that the non-party 4 had been found guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 was not guilty on the ground that the non-party 4 had been found guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 had been found guilty on the ground that the non-party 1 had been found guilty on the ground that the non-party 2 violated the above non-party 1's new appellate court's non-party 1's new appellate court's non-party 1's non-party 1's new judgment.

2. "When a civil or criminal judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition based on a judgment has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition" as a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where the judgment or administrative disposition based on a final judgment is legally binding, or where the judgment or administrative disposition based on a fact-finding in the final judgment has been changed finally and retroactively by another judgment or administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 81Hu42 delivered on May 11, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 87Da208 delivered on December 8, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 91Da13694 delivered on July 26, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da13694 delivered on July 26, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da13694 delivered on July 26, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da1394 delivered on July 26, 1992).

However, there is no doubt that the prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition against the non-party 1 does not legally binding on the judgment subject to a retrial, and the court below also recognized the non-party 1. If the above non-prosecution disposition is not adopted as evidence in the judgment subject to a retrial, it cannot be deemed as evidence for fact-finding. Thus, the above non-prosecution disposition cannot be said to be based on the judgment subject to a retrial. Thus, there is no room to acknowledge the grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which can only be discussed only when

Nevertheless, on the ground that the above non-prosecution disposition was actually considered in the judgment subject to a retrial, the court below recognized the above grounds for a retrial on the ground that the above non-prosecution disposition was based on the judgment subject to a retrial, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1) Subparagraph 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds for appeal pointing this out (However, if the testimony of Non-party 1, who is employed as evidence in the judgment subject to a retrial, "

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)