logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.01.25 2017재두5084
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

1. As to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judgment subject to retrial was dismissed pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that the petition for appeal submitted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was not indicated in the grounds for appeal, and that the appellate brief was not submitted within the statutory period.

The plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for retrial falling under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act to refuse the plaintiff's motion for challenge or to render a judgment without making a decision on the motion for challenge. This is contrary to the main sentence of Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is to be examined ex officio, and omission of judgment on the ground that the appellate brief was not submitted, even though it constitutes a ground for ex officio investigation.

The declaration of a final judgment may be made even when a motion for challenge is filed (proviso to Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful for a judge who has received a motion for challenge after the closing of argument to render a judgment without suspending

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da39553 delivered on November 9, 1993). According to the records, the Plaintiff could have known that the Plaintiff filed a motion for challenge to the said full bench only after the closing of argument in the original judgment subject to retrial after the closing of argument in the original judgment. Thus, the lower court’s failure to suspend the litigation procedure and rendering a final judgment cannot be deemed as having erred as

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s ground for retrial on the premise that the lower court’s litigation procedure violated Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the acts subject to punishment in cases falling under subparagraphs 4 through 7 of paragraph (1).

arrow