A. Whether the judgment subject to a new trial constitutes a previous trial in a case subject to a new trial (negative)

A. The term "previous trial" under Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides for the grounds for exclusion of a judge, refers to a lower court's judgment on the objection case, and thus, the original final judgment which is the object of the retrial in the retrial case shall not fall under this.

B. Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to the case where a party fails to indicate the judgment among the reasons for the judgment regarding the method of attack and defense that could have an impact on the judgment, which is a cause for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. Article 37 subparag. 5 and Article 394(1)2(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da27 delivered on May 11, 1971, 79Da77 delivered on November 27, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85No10 decided April 3, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The "pre-trial trial" referred to in Article 37 subparagraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides a ground for exclusion of a judge, refers to a lower court's judgment in the appeal case, so the original final judgment which is subject to the review in the retrial case is not applicable, and therefore, even if a judge involved in the original final judgment which is subject to the review case, such ground does not constitute a ground for exclusion of a legal complaint or an absolute ground for appeal under Article 394 (1) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 71No27, May 11, 197; Supreme Court Decision 79No77, Nov. 27, 1979). Thus, there is no ground for criticism against the lower court's judgment in the contrary opinion.

With respect to the second ground:

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to the case where a party fails to indicate the judgment among the reasons for the judgment regarding the method of attack and defense that may have an influence on the judgment," which is a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation, as provided in Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act, refers to the case where the party concerned has failed to indicate the judgment among the reasons for the judgment regarding the method of attack and defense that could

According to the records, where the ownership of the secured real estate provided by a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property is transferred by auction on the grounds of the judgment, the judgment subject to a retrial shall be deemed to have been transferred at a cost regardless of whether it is practically possible to exercise the right to indemnity against the principal debtor of the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial shall be dismissed. Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial is just and there is no error of law by disregarding the judgment on the assertion of the lawsuit in the judgment subject to a retrial, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no

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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)