A. The meaning of "when a judgment was omitted on important matters that could affect the judgment" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The meaning of "when the judgment prior to the filing of a new trial conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial" under Article 422 (1) 10 of the

A. Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a party has avoided a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment" means the case where the judgment did not make a decision on such important matters on the grounds of its reasoning, although the party asserted it as an attack and defense method as to important matters that may affect the judgment.

B. Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered before the judgment was rendered,” which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act means that res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered before the judgment was granted in relation

A. Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Da212 delivered on March 10, 1970 (No. 189Da1466 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1466), Supreme Court Decision 89Da106 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 729) (Gong19666 delivered on October 4, 196), Supreme Court Decision 66Da21 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1438 delivered on April 14, 1987), Supreme Court Decision 86Da298 delivered on May 12, 198 (Gong197, 784)

Kim Dak Kim

Kim Yong-ran et al.

Kim Young-young et al.

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2184 Delivered on October 10, 1989

The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment was omitted on important matters that might affect the judgment," which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, "if a party asserts that the judgment was an attack and defense against the important matters that might affect the judgment, the judgment did not make a decision on such important matters," the judgment subject to a retrial can be accepted in light of the records, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, the misapprehension of legal principles on title trust, the lack of reasons, the failure of reasoning, the incomplete deliberation, or the omission of judgment, etc., as alleged in the arguments, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's right of res judicata as to the decision subject to a retrial since the judgment which was rendered on July 25, 1984 was different from the judgment of Gwangju High Court 81Na347, which points out the land price, and there is no error in the misapprehension of res judicata effect of the judgment as to the plaintiff's right to an ex post facto inheritance.

2. Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment was in conflict with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment to bring a new trial” means that res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment affects the relationship between the parties to the original judgment and the subject matter of the lawsuit. However, a final and conclusive judgment rendered by the Plaintiff (Seoul High Court Decision 88Na2181 delivered on November 9, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Na705 delivered on January 20, 198; Supreme Court Decision 81Na347 delivered on July 25, 198; Supreme Court Decision 81Na347 delivered on July 25, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Da1166 delivered on December 7, 198, etc.) cannot be deemed to conflict with the subject matter of the judgment subject to a new trial, and no other final and conclusive judgment by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to affect the parties to the judgment subject to a new trial.

3. Therefore, since it is obvious that the plaintiff's request for retrial of this case is without merit, it is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost, so it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)