Whether failure to explain in detail the grounds for retrial constitutes a deviation from the determination under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act as grounds for retrial (negative)

Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment has been omitted" refers to cases where a judgment among the reasons for the judgment is not indicated among the reasons for the judgment concerning matters that naturally affect the conclusion of the judgment by means of attack and defense which are legitimately submitted by the parties in a lawsuit. Even though the parties did not explain the reasons for the judgment in detail, it shall not be deemed as a deviation of judgment under the above Article

Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82No9 Delivered on April 12, 1983

Attorney Park Gyeong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu50 Delivered on March 26, 1985

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The summary of the grounds for the request for retrial is that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles that recognized the plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder as a secondary taxpayer under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles in the second taxpayer under Article 39 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes without completing the exchange of the name of the company asserted by the plaintiff, which is a party member subject to reexamination of this case.

However, Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment has been omitted" refers to cases where the party concerned has failed to indicate the judgment among the reasons for the judgment, which naturally has an influence on the conclusion of the judgment by means of attack and defense that has been legitimately submitted in a lawsuit, and even if the party did not explain the reasons for the judgment in detail, it shall not be deemed a deviation from the judgment as referred to in the above Article of the above Act. When examining the reasons for the final judgment in question in comparison with the appellate brief, the above final judgment is examined by comparing the reasons for the final judgment, which is the object of the review of this case with the appellate brief, the plaintiff did not explain in detail the reasons for the final judgment that recognized the plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder under Article 422 (1) 9 of the above Act, but it is obvious that the court did not explain in detail that there was no misunderstanding of legal principles

Therefore, the retrial 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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)