2019 Redu5095 Removal from office

A

The head of Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201

[Defendant-Appellee]

Supreme Court Decision 2019Du36124 Decided June 13, 2019

oly 10, 2019

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

The summary of the grounds for appeal on the judgment of the court below on retrial falls under Article 4(1)1, 3, and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Trial and Appeal, and the deliberation should continue. However, the judgment subject to a retrial did not render any judgment on the grounds for appeal by dismissing a final appeal due to the non-competence of the deliberation. Thus, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial

However, the grounds for rejecting the final appeal under Article 4(1)1, 3, and 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for the Trial of the Supreme Court are not legitimate grounds for final appeal. In addition, the judgment dismissing the final appeal due to a psychological failure cannot be subject to any omission in determination as to the grounds for final appeal. Thus, the grounds for final appeal under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be considered as grounds for final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu176, Feb. 13, 1996; 2008Da502, Feb. 12, 2009). Therefore, the request for final appeal in this case is dismissed, and the costs for new trial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

2. Judgment of the presiding judge

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo