Qualifications of the Defendant for retrial as party

In the litigation for retrial, in principle, the defendant is the winning party of the final and conclusive judgment, the successor after the closing of argument, and the winning party becomes the plaintiff or defendant for others, who is subject to the effect of the final and conclusive judgment (e.g., the selected party).

Article 428 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

The Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs et al. and one other

Supreme Court Decision 86No1 Delivered on May 27, 1986

The defendant (the defendant in retrial) shall be dismissed by the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs.

The defendant (the defendant for retrial)'s appeal against the veteran of the Veterans Affairs Administration is dismissed.

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

1. First, the defendant's action for retrial against the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs is examined.

In a lawsuit for retrial, in principle, the defendant is the winning party of the final and conclusive judgment, his successor after the closing of argument, and where the winning party becomes the plaintiff or the defendant for another person, etc., who is subject to the effect of the final and conclusive judgment (e.g., the designated party). As such, the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, which the plaintiff is the defendant for retrial in this case, does not become a party to the judgment subject to retrial in the instant case, nor does it constitute any other case that may become the defendant for retrial, and therefore, the lawsuit for retrial against the Minister of Patriots

2. Next, the defendant (defendant) is examined as to the action for retrial against the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs.

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a plaintiff for a retrial is in conflict with a final and conclusive judgment rendered before the judgment subject to a retrial is rendered, but in detail, does not point out which final and conclusive judgment conflicts with that of a final and conclusive judgment, and all other arguments are erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on November 26, 1985 and the judgment of the lower court, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thus, they cannot be a legitimate ground for a retrial.

3. Therefore, the appeal against the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs is dismissed as it is unlawful. The appeal against the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs for retrial against the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs is dismissed as without merit. The costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)