A. Whether a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act constitutes a ground for retrial where a previous opinion on legal application was modified by the Supreme Court’s small portion of the lawsuit

(b) Point of starting the period for filing a request for review;

C. The meaning of "when the judgment prior to the filing of a new trial conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial" under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. If the Supreme Court did not establish a panel composed of two-thirds or more of all the Supreme Court judges in amending the previous opinion on the application of law, it constitutes a case where the Supreme Court did not constitute a court under the law, which is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The period of filing a retrial under Article 426(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall, barring any special circumstance, be calculated from the time when the plaintiff was served the original copy of the judgment.

(c) "When the ruling conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial" in Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act means where two final and conclusive judgments conflict with res judicata effect in relation to the same case between the same parties.

(a)Article 422(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Da20 Decided May 9, 1979 791 delivered on December 28, 1982

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Minister of Government Administration

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu274 Delivered on September 13, 1983

The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

We examine the reasons for the review of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter).

The gist of the plaintiff's grounds for retrial is as follows: First, the judgment subject to retrial of this case is in conflict with the former member's decision on December 18, 1958, Supreme Court Decision 4290Da6920 Decided February 22, 1966; Supreme Court Decision 65Da2297 Decided September 27, 196; Supreme Court Decision 62Da288 Decided September 27, 1962; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu191 Decided July 13, 1982; although the precedents are substantially changed, it is not judged in a panel composed of more than two thirds of all Supreme Court judges, and it is judged in a panel composed of less than two thirds of all Supreme Court judges, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. Second, if the judgment subject to retrial of this case constitutes grounds for retrial, it constitutes grounds for retrial and ex officio dismissal does not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 4228 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court did not establish a collegiate body composed of two-thirds or more of all the judges of the Supreme Court in changing the previous opinion about the application of the law, it constitutes a time when the court of the judgment is not constituted under the law, which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act. If the Supreme Court has lost its judgment on important matters that affect the judgment, it constitutes a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. If it conflicts with the final judgment rendered before the judgment subject to a retrial, it constitutes a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, among the grounds for retrial as above, a lawsuit for retrial on the ground of Article 422(1)1 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be filed within a peremptory period of 30 days from the date when the judgment became final and conclusive and the ground for retrial becomes known (Article 426(1) of the same Act), and such period for filing a retrial shall be calculated from the time when the plaintiff was served the original copy of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 791 dated May 9, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 82Da20, Dec. 28, 1982; etc.). According to the records, the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial was delivered to the plaintiff on September 23, 1983, while the lawsuit for retrial of this case was filed on June 16, 1987, which is much more than the peremptory period of 30 days thereafter, and thus, the part of the lawsuit for retrial of this case, which constitutes a ground for retrial, cannot be permitted.

In addition, "when the judgment conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial" in Article 422 (1) 10 of the same Act refers to the cases where two final and conclusive judgments conflict with res judicata effect with respect to the same case between the same parties, and where the parties or claims are different in the case where the two judgments are similar, they are different, and thus, they cannot be deemed to constitute "when the judgment prior to the filing of a new trial is in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial" in Article 422 (1) 10 of the same Act. In this case, the judgment subject to a new trial and the above Gwangju High Court's judgment are separate cases where there is no possibility of conflict with res judicata effect. Thus, even if the two different conclusions are different with respect to a similar case, they cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for a

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the judgment subject to a retrial is sought as well as the omission of the trial since it was judged only by the illegality of the ex officio dismissal disposition of this case and the judgment is void automatically. However, considering the record, the plaintiff's assertion in the lawsuit does not seem to differ, and the plaintiff's above assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial is eventually deemed to have a deviation from the judgment subject to a retrial, and therefore, it cannot be accepted for the above reasons (including the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the lawsuit that the judgment

Ultimately, the plaintiff's grounds for retrial are all illegal or groundless, and the retrial costs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)