Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment," the meaning of "when a judgment is omitted."

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, "when a judgment on an important matter that may affect the judgment," refers to the case where a party does not indicate the judgment in the grounds of the judgment concerning a specific attack and defense which has been submitted or invoked by the party in a lawsuit, or where such judgment has been rendered, it cannot be deemed a deviation from the judgment under the above Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, even if the party did not individually explain the grounds for rejecting the party's assertion

Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu658 delivered on September 11, 1984

Plaintiff (Re-Appellant) 1 and 5 others

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 85No9 delivered on March 31, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appellant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is one of the grounds for a retrial under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to the case where a party does not indicate the judgment among the grounds for the judgment concerning the material facts that affect the judgment by means of a specific attack and defense that was submitted or invoked by the party in a lawsuit, and as long as such determination is made, it shall not be deemed a deviation from the judgment under the above Article of the Act, even though the party did not individually explain the grounds for rejecting the party's assertion. In light of the records, the judgment subject to a retrial cannot be deemed an error of the omission from the judgment, clearly stating that the plaintiff's assertion and evidence concerning the party to the acquisition and transfer of the land of this case are rejected. Since the legitimacy of the judgment subject to a retrial is the grounds for a retrial under the name of the omission from the judgment, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' request from the above point of view is justifiable, and there is no error in law by misunderstanding of law as to reverse the legal principles as to

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)