A. Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "When a judge was involved in the previous trial, it means that the judge was involved in the verdict of the previous trial with respect to the final pleadings of the previous trial, and it does not include the previous pleadings or the examination of evidence.

(b) The case where it is recognized that the judgment had influenced the conclusion of the judgment by mistakenly calculating Class A employment income tax amount;

A. The judge involved in the judgment of the previous trial refers to the involvement in the verdict by participating in the final pleadings of the previous trial, and does not include the participation in the previous pleadings or examination of evidence.

B. In order to calculate Class A employment income tax according to the tax rate under the Income Tax Act in force at the time of the accident, it was erroneous in calculating the monthly net income amount, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Article 37 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 27 of the Income Tax Act (Law No. 2051)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na548 decided December 2, 1970

Of the original judgment, the part of the Defendant’s complaint is reversed;

The case portion shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney;

Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "When a judge was involved in a prior trial on which an objection has been filed with respect to a case, he shall mean that he was involved in the verdict by participating in the final pleadings of the previous trial and shall not include the case where he was involved in the prior trial or in the examination of evidence, and according to the records, "A" participating in the preparation of the original judgment shall not include any private participation in the deliberation of the judgment by participating in the final pleadings of the first instance court, but it shall be confirmed that he was only involved in the previous pleadings and examination of evidence. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal that "A" composed of the original judgment is an error of law in the original judgment as a judge participating in

The judgment on the third ground for appeal as above;

According to the original judgment, the court below recognized that the deceased non-party, as the mining unit of the Defendant Corporation, received 14,750 won per month until he reached the age of 53 and deducted 1,004 won from income tax, monthly income is KRW 13,746 and KRW 3,500 per month from among them is required as an individual living cost. Accordingly, monthly income is KRW 10,246, and this money has been continuously lost for 281 months from the day following the accident to the age of 53.

However, it is obvious that Class A employment income amount of 14,750 won, calculated by the provisions of Article 27 of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 2051) which was in force as of June 23, 1969 at the time of the accident, for Class A employment income amount of 14,750 won, is 1,122 won, and (14,750 x 7.7/100- [20,00-14,750 x 2.50)] less than the above amount (1,004 x 2.5/100) was calculated as the basis for calculating the amount of monthly income loss of the above non-party, which affected the result of the original judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)