The starting point of counting the period of filing a lawsuit for retrial on the ground that the final judgment has been rejected;

The existence of the grounds for retrial falling under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “the grounds for retrial”) can be seen by read the original copy of the judgment unless there is a special reason. Therefore, inasmuch as there is no evidence of assertion as to the special reason, it is reasonable to view that the parties themselves or their legal representatives were aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial by receiving the original copy of the judgment, so long as the court below acknowledged that the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial (the High Court judgment) was to have known the existence of the grounds for retrial on the date when it was served to the plaintiffs’ legal representatives pursuant to Article 426 (1) 9 of the same Act, and dismissed the lawsuit of this case filed 30 days after the date when the plaintiffs became aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial, counting from the day following the date when the judgment subject

Articles 422(1)9 and 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1067 Decided June 18, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 81Da11 Decided July 22, 1980

Gangwon-dol et al.

The Central Land Expropriation Committee

Seoul High Court Decision 81No4 delivered on May 12, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the court below's decision on September 17, 1980 on the case of Seoul High Court 78Gu258 has grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is evident that the lawsuit for retrial of this case was filed on May 4, 1981. Thus, the existence of such grounds for retrial can be known by read the original judgment once, unless there is a special ground for retrial, so long as there is no evidence of assertion as to the special ground for retrial, it is reasonable to view that the court below was aware of the existence of such grounds for retrial by receiving the original judgment of this case. In this regard, the court below recognized that the plaintiffs knew of the existence of the above grounds for retrial after September 24, 1980, on which the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the plaintiffs' legal representative, and that the plaintiffs were not aware of the existence of such grounds for retrial after the lapse of the date when the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to the provisions of Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 128 of the same Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice)