"When it conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment instituting a new trial" in Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a final and conclusive judgment, which is a cause for a retrial, conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial,” refers to a case where the effect of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial, affects the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, which conflicts with both judgments. Even if a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial and its contents are

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 85No9 Delivered on April 27, 1985

Plaintiff

Minister of Government Administration

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu274 Delivered on September 13, 1983

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the reasons for the review of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter).

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the same Act are established to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment. “When the final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment is in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered” refers to the time when both rulings conflict with each other. Even if a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment concerns cases similar to the judgment subject to retrial and its contents, if res judicata effect of

The gist of the grounds for retrial asserted by the court below is in conflict with a party's judgment rendered before the judgment for retrial was rendered. Thus, there exists a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, it is difficult to view that a final and conclusive judgment rendered before the plaintiff's assertion itself affects both parties to the instant judgment for retrial as a judgment on res judicata, and there is no data that can be seen as such. Thus, the above grounds for retrial cannot be accepted.

In addition, the plaintiff's judgment on the important issues alleged by the plaintiff has a ground for retrial, but when examining the reasoning of the judgment on the subject of retrial, the plaintiff's judgment on the rejection of all the grounds for appeal alleged by the plaintiff is clearly stated, so the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the retrial of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial 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)