Whether a change in the bank deposit management regulations constitutes grounds for retrial (negative)

After accepting the offset against the bank, there was a judgment dismissing the entire claim, and even if there was a change in the system to pay the first priority deposit without offsetting the loan claims of the bank, if the holder of a bill receives an order to improve the system in accordance with the contradictory practices of the bank by the Bank Supervisory Board and the direction to improve the system, such a reason does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

The Bank of Korea, Inc.

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu200 Decided June 22, 1982

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for retrial shall be considered.

In short, the judgment subject to a retrial was accepted pursuant to the agreement on the current account and the defense of the defendant (the re-appellant) who asserted a offset against the claim for the return of the funds in exchange for the current account held by the defendant (the defendant) and the non-party (the plaintiff) pursuant to the agreement on the current account, and maintained the judgment of the appellate court that dismissed the plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s claim for the entire payment. However, since April 1, 1983 pursuant to the bank contradictory practices and the direction of the improvement of the system, the system was modified to receive the first priority deposit without offsetting the bank's loan claims if the holder of a bill is ordered to pay the entire amount of the bill as in the instant case. This is the purport that the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act and should be modified.

However, the grounds for the lawsuit do not fall under “when it conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a new trial” under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, and does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of the above Article. Ultimately, the lawsuit for new trial is dismissed for lack of grounds, and the costs of new trial are assessed against the losing party and are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)