In case where a lawsuit was brought to the first instance court on the judgment of the first instance in a case where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits, the measures to be taken by the first instance court

When an appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of a case at the appellate court, it is not possible to institute a lawsuit on the merits of the judgment of the first instance. As such, a lawsuit on the first instance court against the judgment of the first instance which is not the appellate court judgment, which is not the judgment of the appellate court, is a lawsuit for retrial, which is not the object of a retrial, and which lacks the litigation requirements for retrial, and is an unlawful lawsuit which lacks the litigation requirements for retrial and merely violates the jurisdiction of retrial. However, even if the appellate court stated the judgment of the first instance in the petition for retrial, if the grounds for retrial alleged in the grounds for retrial are deemed to relate to the judgment of the appellate court (the same shall apply to cases where the grounds for retrial are common to the judgment of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance), it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit is the object of

Articles 31(1) and 422(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da413 Decided October 15, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3063) (Gong1994Ha, 3063) 88Da33442 Decided October 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1779) decided February 28, 1984 (Gong1984, 589)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

New Transport Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Order 191.25, 94Ra189 decided November 25, 1994

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the provisions of Article 422 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, when an appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of a case at an appellate court, a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment of the first instance shall not be instituted. Thus, a lawsuit for retrial filed at the court of first instance, which is not a judgment of appellate court, is not a judgment of appellate court, but an action for retrial, which lacks the litigation requirements for retrial, and cannot be deemed an unlawful lawsuit which merely violates the jurisdiction of retrial. However, even if the appellate court stated the judgment of the first instance in the petition for retrial, if the grounds for retrial alleged in the grounds for retrial are deemed to relate to the judgment of appellate court (the same shall apply to cases where the grounds for retrial are common to the judgment of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance), it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit for retrial is the subject of the judgment of appellate court, and it is reasonable to regard that the indication of judgment to review is erroneous, and thus, the first instance court in receipt of the petition for retrial shall not dismiss it as unlawful and shall transfer it to the appellate court which

According to the records, on May 12, 1990, the re-appellant (the plaintiff, the re-appellant, and the plaintiff et al.) was sentenced to partial winning on September 30, 1992 by filing a lawsuit claiming damages against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff 1 was boarding the urban bus owned by the other party (the defendant, the defendant, the retrial defendant, and the defendant) on May 12, 1990, and that the bus was fasting. Some of the appeals filed by the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court 91Gahap26794 were affirmed. The plaintiffs extended the purport of the appeal by the Seoul High Court 92Na666, but all appeals and expanded claims by the plaintiffs were dismissed on August 4, 1993. The part of the above plaintiff 1 was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court on December 24, 1993, and the remaining part of the plaintiff's appeal No. 2 was dismissed by the appellate court's dismissal of the plaintiff's remaining appeal and the remaining part of the appeal No. 200004.4.14.6.

Thus, the court of first instance should transfer the lawsuit of this case to the appellate court, which is the competent court of second instance, and therefore, the court below's conclusion that the first instance court's measure to transfer the retrial of this case to the appellate court is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The sole reason cited by the theory of the lawsuit is that the first instance court has jurisdiction over the retrial of this case.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)