Date of commencing the period of filing a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds of illegality in organizing the judgment court

In accordance with Article 426(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial shall be filed within a peremptory period of 30 days from the date when the party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive. Barring any special circumstance, the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the same Act may be deemed to have known the existence of the grounds for retrial by becoming aware of the illegality of the formation of the judgment court when the party was served with the original copy of the judgment, barring any special circumstance. In addition, in a case where there is an attorney, barring any special circumstance when the judgment was served on the attorney, the party shall be deemed to have known of the existence of the grounds

Articles 422(1)1, 426(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Nu25, 26 decided July 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 1350), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu732 decided December 27, 1988 (Gong1988, 1118), Supreme Court Decision 92Da3930 decided September 28, 1993 (Gong198, 239), Supreme Court Decision 87Nu732 decided December 27, 198 (Gong1989, 239), Supreme Court Decision 92Da3930 decided September 28, 1993 (Gong1934)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys Kim Jong-seon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Supreme Court Decision 99Da25785 Delivered on December 10, 1999

The litigation for the retrial of this case shall be dismissed. The litigation costs for the retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

In accordance with Article 426(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for a retrial shall be filed within a peremptory period of 30 days from the date when the party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive. Barring any special circumstance, the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the same Act may be deemed to have become aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial by becoming aware of the illegality of the formation of the judgment court when the party was served with the original copy of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4290Du339, Aug. 24, 1961). In addition, in a case where there is an attorney, barring any special circumstance when the judgment was served on the attorney, the party shall be deemed to have been aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial, and the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial shall continue to progress from the time when the attorney was served with the original copy of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu25, Jul. 10, 26, 19888>

Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the judgment subject to a retrial (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") was rendered by a panel composed of less than two-thirds of all Justices, even though the judgment subject to a retrial changes its opinion in the previous Supreme Court decision, and thus, a request for a retrial is made on the ground of Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, according to the records, the judgment subject to a retrial is served on the attorney of the plaintiffs on December 21, 1999, and the head of the reexamination office of this case receives it to the Supreme Court on January 21, 200, which clearly declared that the peremptory period as of the date of the review was too excessive. Thus, in this case where there is no other evidence to deem that there is any special reason, the lawsuit of this case brought after the peremptory period is excessive, and thus,

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to dismiss the lawsuit of this case.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)