A. The meaning of grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Determination and grounds for retrial to change the previous Supreme Court’s view in a panel composed of two-thirds of judges of the Supreme Court and a two-thirds of judges of the Supreme Court

C. The meaning of a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are established to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment. As such, “when a final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment to be tried conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment to the parties to the judgment subject to retrial,” and even if a final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment concerns a case similar to the judgment subject to review and its contents, if the parties to the judgment are different and the res judicata effect of

B. Where the Supreme Court amends its previous opinion on the application of laws, it shall be tried at a collegiate body composed of not less than two-thirds of all judges of the Supreme Court, and if a judgment is rendered by a panel composed of less than two-thirds of all judges of the Supreme Court, it constitutes grounds for retrial as it does not constitute a judgment court by law.

C. The phrase “when a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act exists” refers to the case where a judgment is not indicated on the means of attack and defense by the parties that have an influence on the conclusion of the judgment, and as long as the judgment was made, even if there were errors in the contents of the judgment, or the reasons leading up to the judgment were not sufficiently explained and the reasons leading up to the judgment were not individually explained, it cannot be deemed as a deviation from the determination under the above Article.

A. Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 7 of the Court Organization Act; Article 422(1)0 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Da9 delivered on April 27, 1985 and 85Nu6 delivered on February 11, 1986 B. Supreme Court Decision 79Da11 delivered on May 27, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 81Da9 delivered on September 28, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Da13 delivered on December 28, 1982. Supreme Court Decision 80Da30 delivered on April 12, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 84Da579 delivered on May 14, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu475 delivered on September 23, 1986

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu274 Delivered on September 13, 1983

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the reasons for the review of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter).

1. The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are established in order to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial. Thus, “where a final and conclusive judgment prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial” refers to the case where both judgments conflict with one another. Even though a final and conclusive judgment prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial concerns a case similar to that of the judgment subject to retrial, if res judicata effect of the judgment does not affect the parties to the judgment subject to retrial, it cannot be deemed as constituting grounds for retrial under the above provision (see

The gist of the grounds for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff is that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it conflicts with a party judgment rendered before the judgment for retrial was rendered. However, it is difficult to view that a final and conclusive judgment, even before the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, has res judicata effect on both parties to the instant judgment for retrial, and there are no materials to be seen as such, and therefore, the above grounds for retrial cannot be accepted.

2. Where the Supreme Court amends its previous opinion on the application of laws, it shall be tried at a collegiate body composed of not less than two-thirds of all judges of the Supreme Court, and where a judgment is rendered by a panel composed of less than two-thirds of all judges of the Supreme Court, it constitutes a case where there is no judgment court under the law, and it constitutes a case where there is a ground for retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 82Hun13, Dec. 28, 1982).

However, according to the records, the court below's decision that the decision subject to a review of this case is erroneous in the misconception of facts, the omission of judgment, the lack of reasons, or the contradiction of reasons due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the judgment of the court below, and it cannot be adopted as a whole since it is obvious that there is no interpretation contrary to the respective opinions of party members' decision, and it does not constitute a case where the previous party members' opinion is changed clearly because it does not correspond to a case where three judges of the Supreme Court have been tried in a division composed of three judges of the Supreme Court, which does not constitute an illegal cause that does not constitute a court under the law

3. The phrase “when a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where a judgment is not indicated on the means of attack and defense by the parties that have an influence on the conclusion of the judgment, and as long as the judgment was made, even if there were errors in the contents of the judgment, or the reasons leading up to the judgment were not clearly explained and the reasons leading up to the judgment were not individually explained, it shall not be deemed as a deviation from the determination under the above Article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da30, Apr. 12, 1983).

Although the Plaintiff asserts that there was a cause for a retrial that the Plaintiff’s decision on the important dispute that the original decision had been rendered, it is evident that the Plaintiff rejected all the judgment that the Plaintiff cannot adopt the grounds for appeal, such as the omission of judgment, the lack of reasons or the failure of reasons, and the failure of reasoning, etc., that are alleged by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the argument of the lawsuit may not be deemed to be erroneous. All arguments are groundless.

4. Therefore, the retrial of this case is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)