The case holding that there is no possibility of conflict between res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment of an administrative litigation rendered prior to res judicata of a civil judgment subject to review and res judicata

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When the judgment conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial,” which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, is established to avoid conflict between res judicata effect of the judgment subject to a new trial and res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial. As such, res judicata effect of the judgment subject to a new trial on the existence of the Plaintiff’s right to claim ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s site does not conflict with res judicata effect of

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

E.S. Attorney Lee Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Song-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 88Na5942 delivered on March 23, 1989

Busan District Court Decision 90Na115 delivered on November 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the judgment conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment which had been rendered prior to the retrial," which is a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act, is established to avoid conflict between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the retrial. The res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial of this case concerns the existence of the plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration of the site in this case, and res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment of the lawsuit (Seoul High Court Decision 69Gu10) of the administrative litigation is related to the illegality of the disposition of the permission for installation of private pressure facilities against the plaintiff

In addition, even after comparing the reasoning of the judgment of the court below with the records, it is just that the court below did not constitute any of the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 1 through 11 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. All of the arguments are groundless.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)