A. Whether the Plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit for retrial on the ground of the omission of judgment, received a dismissal judgment by filing a lawsuit for retrial, is not a defect of power of representation or a matter under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

B. In a case where there was an error in the judgment or there was no individual ground establishment, whether it constitutes a “salary of determination” under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

A. On October 10, 1989, when the plaintiff was served on October 10, 1989, and on November 9, 1989, when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for a retrial on the grounds that it was subject to a retrial and was dismissed, the plaintiff of the retrial shall be deemed to have known of the grounds that he/she argued to be a deviation of judgment on October 1, 1989 or around November 1989. Therefore, the plaintiff of the retrial shall not lawfully assert the above grounds, unless the right of representation was defective or the matters stipulated in Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are the grounds for retrial.

B. It cannot be deemed as falling under “when the judgment was neglected,” which is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Act, because there was an error in the judgment, or the reason or basis leading to the judgment, was not presented daily or individually.”

A. Articles 422(1), 426, and 427 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Reda44 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 729)

Gangwon-gu

Non-heat et al.

Supreme Court Decision 89Da3540 Decided September 29, 1989

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

1. A lawsuit for a retrial against a final judgment may be brought on the grounds that there are grounds for a retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “Act”).

In addition, pursuant to Articles 426(1) and 427 of the Act, a suit for retrial is to be filed within 30 days from the date when the party becomes aware of the cause for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive, except for a suit for lack of power of representation or a suit for retrial on the ground of the matters set forth in Article 422(1) and 10

However, according to the records, the grounds for retrial asserted by the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter "the plaintiff") are not the defects of power of attorney or the matters set forth in Article 422 (1) 10 of the Act, but the plaintiff was served on October 10, 1989, and the plaintiff was dismissed after having filed a lawsuit for retrial based on the grounds for retrial on November 9, 1989.

Thus, the plaintiff should be deemed to have known about the ground that the plaintiff argued that he was disqualified from the judgment during October or November of 1989 (as seen earlier, there is no deviation from the judgment as a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to retrial). Thus, in this case, the plaintiff raised 30 days after the lapse of 30 days from the judgment (the receipt of the petition for retrial on April 11, 1990) (this cannot be legitimately asserted as a ground for retrial).

2. Examining further records, the judgment subject to a retrial is dismissed on the ground that the ground of final appeal alleged by the Plaintiff does not fall under any of the grounds of final appeal under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings before Ruling, and that the appeal

Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial cannot be deemed to fall under the grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Act, which is the grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Act, on the ground that there was no error in the judgment, or the grounds or grounds leading to such judgment were not individually or individually explained.

In addition, although the plaintiff knew that there was an error in the judgment of the court below in the decision subject to a retrial, it cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial for the decision subject to a retrial, and the argument that there is a ground falling under Article 11 (1) 2 and 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Examination cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial.

Various reasons for the arguments are all not legitimate grounds for retrial.

3. Therefore, the retrial of this case 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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)