"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 provides that “When the final and conclusive judgment prior to the judgment to institute a new trial conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment” means that the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment prior to the judgment affects the relationship between the party

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 106 (Gong1990, 666) (Gong1990, 863) (Gong1990, 863) and 90Da20510 (Gong1272) decided March 27, 1991

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Coal Corporation

Supreme Court Decision 93Da4816 delivered on May 11, 1993

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

The grounds for retrial asserted by the plaintiff (the plaintiff is called the plaintiff) are examined.

Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the final judgment prior to the judgment to institute a new trial conflicts with the final judgment rendered prior to the judgment," the term "if the res judicata effect of the final judgment prior to the judgment leads to the relationship between the parties to the original judgment and the subject matter of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu106, Feb. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Da20510, Mar. 9, 190; Supreme Court Decision 90Da20510, Mar. 27, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 90Da6170, Jan. 15, 1991)" means that the subject matter is similar to the subject matter, and it cannot be deemed that there exists a ground for a new trial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial has been contrary to the original judgment.

Therefore, since it is clear that the plaintiffs' request for retrial of this case is without merit, it is dismissed and the costs of retrial are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)