A. The point of view that he/she was aware of a deviation from judgment in a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds of a deviation from judgment on the final judgment of a small amount case

(b) In cases under paragraph (a) above, the starting point of counting the period for filing a lawsuit;

A. The existence of the grounds for a retrial, i.e., the omission of judgment, can be seen by read the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial unless there is a special reason. Therefore, unless there is any proof of the grounds for a retrial, it is reasonable to view that the parties were aware of the existence of the grounds for a retrial at the time of being served

B. In the case of Paragraph (a) above, a party to a retrial becomes aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial, and must file a lawsuit within 30 days from the date the judgment subject to retrial becomes final

Articles 422(1)9, 426(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8510 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1002) 91Da29057 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 107) 92Da33930 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2944)

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

New Construction (New Construction) Company

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na56 delivered on July 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

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

We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff (the plaintiff in this case, the plaintiff in this case).

The court below acknowledged that the judgment for retrial was rendered on November 18, 1992, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the plaintiff on December 3, 1992. The plaintiff appealeded on March 12, 1993, but the judgment for retrial became final and conclusive on March 12, 1993. The court below determined as to the plaintiff's assertion that there was a ground for retrial falling under "when failing to make a decision on important matters that may affect the judgment" under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff's assertion that there was a ground for retrial, as alleged by the plaintiff, can be known by read the authentic copy of the judgment for retrial, unless there is a special ground. Thus, in this case where there is no proof as to the special ground, the plaintiff did not know that the certified copy of the judgment for retrial was served on the plaintiff on December 3, 1992. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial of this case was unlawful after the plaintiff became aware of the existence of the ground for retrial.

In light of the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is just and it is also possible to file a final appeal with the Supreme Court only when it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act with respect to the second judgment rendered by the collegiate division of the district court as to the original small amount case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu313, Oct. 12, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8510, Feb. 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 201Da3203, Nov. 13, 1990). Thus, in this case, the plaintiff's rejection of judgment based on the grounds for final appeal against the judgment cannot be seen as being a final appeal against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)