The meaning of "when a judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment" as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a judgment on important matters affecting the judgment has been omitted” refers to cases where a judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment concerning the means of attack and defense submitted by a party in a lawsuit, which have an influence on the judgment. As long as the judgment was made, even though the reasons leading to the judgment are not sufficiently explained or the grounds for rejecting a party’s assertion are not individually explained, it cannot be deemed as a deviation of judgment under the above Act.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 106 (Gong1990, 666) (Gong1990, 863) (Gong1990, 863) (Gong1990, 863) and 89 Jae-26 (Gong1991, 188)

Plaintiff

The Minister of Justice

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7197 Delivered on May 10, 1991

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

The grounds for retrial of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") are examined.

1. The term "when a judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment", which are grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to the cases where a party is a means of attack and defense submitted by the party in a lawsuit, and the judgment is not clearly stated in the grounds for the judgment, and as long as the judgment was made, it cannot be deemed a deviation from the judgment under the above Act, even if the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly stated or the grounds for rejecting the party's claims are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu106, Feb. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89DaDa140, Mar. 9, 190).

In comparison with the grounds of appeal as to the judgment of the court below in the judgment subject to a retrial of this case, the judgment subject to a retrial of this case cannot be deemed to have been neglected on the ground that "the plaintiff, as examined by the records, voluntarily resigned from the judgment of the court below due to his own reason, such as the time of the original judgment, shall not be deemed to have been forced to resign by the purification plan in 1980, and there are no errors in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation, or lack of reasoning, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff, it is obvious that the judgment of the court below was judged as to whether there was a violation of the rules of evidence, the lack of reasons, and the grounds for rejecting the plaintiff's assertion, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff. There is no ground for

2. In addition, although the judgment of the court below contains a violation of the rules of evidence and an incomplete reasoning in the judgment subject to a retrial, this cannot be a ground for retrial under Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the judgment subject to a retrial. Therefore, this is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial 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)