The meaning of Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the same 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 the final and conclusive judgment. “When a final and conclusive judgment prior to the judgment for retrial conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment for retrial” refers to the time when both rulings conflict with each other. Even in cases where a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment for retrial concerns a case similar to that subject to retrial, if

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Da20510 Decided March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1272) 93Da300 Decided October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3163), and 93Da294 Decided May 24, 1994

Plaintiff (Re-Appellant) 1 and 3 other plaintiffs (Re-Appellants)

Attorney Jeong Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 93Da34176 delivered on October 12, 1993

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Plaintiffs for retrial).

We examine the grounds for retrial by the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff)'s attorney.

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a cause for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the same Act shall be established to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final judgment rendered prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial. "When a final judgment prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial conflicts with a final judgment rendered prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial" refers to the time when both rulings conflict with each other. Even though a final judgment prior to that of the judgment subject to retrial concerns a case similar to that of the judgment subject to retrial, if the res judicata of the judgment does not reach the person subject to retrial as different parties, it does not constitute a cause for retrial under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89DaDa140, Mar. 9, 19

The gist of the grounds for retrial asserted by the plaintiff's representative is that there is a ground for retrial as provided in Article 422 (1) 10 (Article 422 (10) of the Civil Procedure Act) of the Civil Procedure Act, since it conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered by a member prior to the decision for retrial (Article 422 (1) 10 (Article 422 (10) of the Civil Procedure Act, it is evident that the final and conclusive judgment by the plaintiffs' representative is a clerical error; 90Da19647, Dec. 7, 1990; 90Da19647, a case number is 90Da1967, Nov. 27, 1990; 90Da23866, a case number is 90Da289666). However, even if the plaintiffs' representative's assertion itself, it is evident that the above final and conclusive judgment would have the same effect as the judgment subject to retrial as the final and conclusive judgment and the wages of the defendant two parties.

Therefore, the retrial of this case shall be dismissed, and the costs of the retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Plaintiffs) who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)