Summary
The omission of adjudication on part of a claim and the omission of judgment in the reasons of a judgment differ in their subject and in the procedure for handling them.
5.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
The door to be used for correction differs according to whether the place missing lies in the operative part or in the reasons. The preceding section took the view that a failure to render a determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment must be considered together with the provisions on grounds for retrial and their limitations. In the scene in which Plaintiff A asserts that there is no answer to a decisive defense and Defendant B contends that the intent to reject it appears throughout the judgment, it must first be settled whether failing to adjudicate a claim and overlooking a determination in the reasons are one and the same. This is because, if the two defects are mixed together in a single application, the relief demanded and the object may fail to match. This question further asks, along the way, what the standard is by which the channel of this remedy opens. The channel considered here means the channel for appealing on the ground of a defect that goes to the judgment as understood.
Civil Procedure Act Article 212 paragraph (1), which addresses the omission of adjudication of a part of a claim, provides that "Where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, the same court shall continue to adjudicate that part of the claim." In this wording, the subject is the court, the act is the adjudication of a part of the claim, and the condition is the case in which that adjudication has been omitted. In the same terminology, failure to adjudicate refers precisely to the absence of the adjudication of a part of the claim itself. All that the provision says, insofar as it bears on this question, is the disposition by which the same court continues to handle the omitted part of the claim.
This basis and the conclusion of this section take the view that, where the handling of arguments is linked to the reasons for the operative part and the defect identified is specified as statutory grounds for challenging a decision, the entrance to this remedy opens. This determination can stand only once failure to adjudicate is distinguished from an omission of determination in the reasons. The absence of the adjudication of a part of the claim is a case in which the object of the operative part is empty, whereas overlooking a determination in the reasons is a case in which the operative part stands but the determinative ground underlying it is empty. Even as between these two, a failure to render a determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment falls within the wording of Civil Procedure Act Article 451 paragraph (1) subparagraph 9 (Civil Procedure Act Article 451). This wording is one of the grounds for retrial against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive, and the wording of that ground is placed in Civil Procedure Act Article 451.
The strongest counterargument is that the parties may find it difficult to distinguish the two defects from the documents alone. The written judgment sets out the operative part and the reasons together, and even upon reading the records it may be difficult to discern which defense received an answer where. This inconvenience increases the risk of choosing the wrong channel at the application stage. Even so, an omission from the operative part cannot be treated in the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons. If the two defects, which differ in their object, are bundled into one, the relief demanded and the parties change accordingly; the place at which the corrective door differs must therefore be distinguished and stated to the end.
In the synthetic scene, considering only the fact that Plaintiff A asserts that there is no answer to a decisive defense and Defendant B contends that the intent to reject appears throughout the judgment, whether the seat of the dissatisfaction lies in the operative part or in the reasons cannot be determined here. The scene states neither the content of the operative part nor the paragraph in which the defense was addressed, and the only kinds of confirmed material are the list of assertions, the reasons for the judgment, the operative part, and the grounds for appeal or retrial. In this case, whether the important assertion itself was submitted, or where it was determined, is unconfirmed, and so the assessment remains undetermined. If the dissatisfied part is confirmed to be a rejection in the determination on the merits, the classification as an omission in the reasons must be altered accordingly.
What this section permits is to distinguish a failure to adjudicate a part of a claim from an omission of determination in the reasons for the judgment as differing in object and handling procedure, and, where the defect identified is specified as statutory grounds for challenging a decision, to examine the conditions at its entrance. By contrast, where there is only a mere dissatisfaction with the outcome and no part can be specified as falling within the alleged omission of reasons, contradiction, or omission of an important determination, this channel is closed. It is likewise impermissible to treat an omission from the operative part in the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons. Next is the question of into what wording the defect in the reasons must be narrowed.
5.2The Conditions That Block Relief
Starting from the premise that a failure to render a determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment must be considered together with the provisions on grounds for retrial and their limitations, it asks whether failing to adjudicate a claim and overlooking a determination in the reasons are the same. This question begins from the point that, depending on which place is actually left empty, the object to be corrected and the procedure for handling that object differ. Plaintiff A asserts that there is no answer to a decisive defense, and Defendant B contends that the intent to reject appears throughout the judgment. This scene is a dispute over a gap in the realm of the reasons, and it is not yet settled what remains in the operative part. It is here that the question is sifted whether the dispute over the empty place within the written judgment opens or closes the door of procedure.
The wording applied when a part of a claim is omitted from adjudication is settled as follows. Civil Procedure Act Article 212 paragraph (1) provides: "Where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, the same court shall continue to adjudicate that part of the claim" (Civil Procedure Act Article 212). Here the subject is the court that rendered the judgment, the act is the omission of the adjudication of a part of the claim, and the condition is the case in which that part of the claim remains and thus remains an object of continued examination. The place this wording addresses is the place where the determination on the claim itself is missing. Civil Procedure Act Article 451 provides: "Where any of the following subparagraphs applies, an action for retrial may be instituted against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive; provided, however, that this shall not apply where the party asserted that ground by appeal, or failed to assert it despite knowing of it" (Civil Procedure Act Article 451), and its paragraph (1) subparagraph 9 lists "Where a determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment has been omitted" (Civil Procedure Act Article 451). The place this wording targets is the place where a determination is missing from the reasons of a judgment already given. The two wordings do not call the same defect by different names.
This distinction serves as the criterion for determining which door is to be used for correction. Here, failure to adjudicate means that the adjudication of a part of the claim itself is missing. In that case, a procedure is prescribed by which the court fills the empty place through continued examination of the remaining part of the claim (Civil Procedure Act Article 212). By contrast, an omission of determination in the reasons is a case in which the answer to an important matter is missing from the process of determination supporting the operative part as given, and, for a final judgment that has become final and conclusive, it presupposes a different channel, namely an action for retrial (Civil Procedure Act Article 451). Although in both cases there may appear to be an empty place in the written judgment, in the one case it is a matter of a place remaining for handling the remaining claim, and in the other it is a matter of handling a determination already given. Their object and handling procedure therefore differ. The two places separated by the preceding sentence also divide the very form of the application that follows.
The difficulty of distinguishing the two defects from the documents alone remains as it is. The form of the judgment or the order of its exposition does not always mark the place of the operative part, and it may not be apparent at a glance in which sentence the answer to a defense is contained. The inconvenience the parties suffer at such an ambiguous place is not small. This is because, if a dissatisfaction with the same fact is carried into the wrong channel, the procedure for dealing with that place may already be lost. There is also the concern that, if answers are required one by one for each of many assertions, judgments will grow longer and handling will be delayed. Even acknowledging such a burden, an omission from the operative part cannot be handled in the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons. If the place of a conclusion already given and the place of a conclusion left empty are handled in the same application, the designated object and procedure become entangled.
In the synthetic scene, the place in dispute lies in the realm of the reasons. Plaintiff A asserts that there is no answer to a decisive defense, and Defendant B contends that the intent to reject appears throughout the judgment; this is not about the handling of a remaining claim, but a dispute over whether an answer exists within the determination already given. However, on the strength of this scene alone, neither whether the important defense itself was submitted nor where in the written judgment that defense was addressed has been confirmed. While it remains unconfirmed, the rejection within the determination given cannot be separated from an omission of determination in the reasons and settled as such. Unless the material is supplied, that place remains undetermined.
The boundary drawn is as follows. Where the adjudication of a part of the claim itself is empty and a remaining part of the claim exists, a separate handling procedure is prescribed for filling that place (Civil Procedure Act Article 212). Where the determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment is regarded as empty in the reasons of the judgment given, that defect must be considered together with the provisions on grounds for retrial and their limitations (Civil Procedure Act Article 451). However, where there is only a mere dissatisfaction with the outcome and no part can be specified as falling within the alleged omission of reasons, contradiction, or omission of an important determination, the channel of relief closes if even one of the statutory requirements is not met. This, however, is not a determination that eliminates the dissatisfaction with the outcome itself; it merely settles how and which places are to be distinguished.
5.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
That is, on the premise that a failure to render a determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment must be considered together with the provisions on grounds for retrial and their limitations, this section addresses the boundary that cannot be fixed for want of material. In this dispute the question whether failing to adjudicate a claim and overlooking a determination in the reasons are the same remains as it stands. One can neither presume that the two defects arose from the same place nor assert categorically that they arose from different places.
To answer this question, the relevant wording must first be placed in its settled position. Civil Procedure Act Article 212 paragraph (1) provides: "Where the court has failed to adjudicate a part of a claim, the same court shall continue to adjudicate that part of the claim." This wording fixes the subject of failure to adjudicate as the court, the act as the adjudication of a part of the claim, and the condition as the case in which adjudication has been omitted. What is addressed here is the situation in which the adjudication of a part of the claim itself is missing; which answer to which defense is missing within the reasons for the judgment is not directly determined by the wording of this paragraph.
At the same time, Civil Procedure Act Article 451 paragraph (1) subparagraph 9 places "Where a determination on a matter of importance affecting the judgment has been omitted" among the grounds for instituting an action for retrial. This wording fixes the object of the determination as a matter of importance affecting the judgment and the act as a determination, and its object does not overlap with that of failure to adjudicate. The main sentence and proviso of Civil Procedure Act Article 451 paragraph (1) state: "(1) Where any of the following subparagraphs applies, an action for retrial may be instituted against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive; provided, however, that this shall not apply where the party asserted that ground by appeal, or failed to assert it despite knowing of it," thereby also providing that, even for the same ground, the channel may close depending on the circumstances in which it was asserted. Because a failure to adjudicate a part of a claim and an omission of determination in the reasons for the judgment differ in object and handling procedure, if the two are bundled into one in judgment, the doors the law has provided for each fall out of alignment. The former presupposes the disposition by which the same court continues the adjudication of that part of the claim; the latter presupposes the channel of appeal in the form of an action for retrial against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive. This distinction is not an assessment of which defect is graver, but a matter of determining which door handles the defect.
The parties may have difficulty separating the two defects from the documents alone. Though the form of the written judgment records the operative part and the reasons separately, when a party reads it and points out the missing place, that perception does not necessarily follow the form. The sense that there is no answer to an unfavorable part and the sense that something is missing from the operative part may be mixed within a single application, and what defect that application targets may not be stated precisely. The demand that individual answers not be required for every assertion, out of concern that judgments will become protracted and handling delayed, also arises from the same place. Even so, an omission from the operative part cannot be handled in the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons. If the boundary that cannot be fixed for want of material is forcibly joined together, the wrong channel opens or closes without one knowing on which door it relies. In that case, matters for which the materials of determination are not specified are left undetermined, distinguished from impossibility.
The only facts confirmed in this scene are the structure of the two parties' assertions. Plaintiff A says that there is no answer to a decisive defense, and Defendant B contends that the intent to reject appears throughout the judgment, but the list of assertions, the relevant passage in the reasons for the judgment, the content of the operative part, and the statement of the grounds for appeal or retrial are absent here. Because neither whether the important assertion itself was submitted nor, if it was, where it was determined is confirmed, this matter remains with its materials of determination unspecified. That is, if Defendant B's contention that the intent to reject appears throughout the judgment is confirmed, that place is regarded not as missing an answer but as having one, and the classification as failure to adjudicate is then narrowed afresh toward a defect in the reasons. Since the scene alone cannot decide which is the case, this segment is left conditional and undetermined.
What this section permits is the following narrow distinction. The absence of the adjudication of a part of the claim itself is an object of handling as a failure to adjudicate, while the absence of a determination on an important matter within the reasons for the judgment is an object of review as a ground for appeal prescribed in Civil Procedure Act Article 451 paragraph (1) subparagraph 9, and the two are not bundled into the same application. What is not permitted is to determine which is the case in the absence of material, or to fill in unconfirmed facts and assert categorically whether a determination exists. What is unconfirmed is left undetermined rather than impossible, and this denotes a state that may change when further material is added. However, the channel for appealing on the ground of a defect that goes to the judgment as understood opens only where the handling of arguments is linked to the operative part and the reasons and the defect identified is specified as statutory grounds for challenging a decision. Conversely, where there is only a mere dissatisfaction with the outcome and no part can be specified as falling within the alleged omission of reasons, contradiction, or omission of an important determination, that channel cannot be opened separately.
5.4The Records Needed for Determination
In this dispute, one must determine whether failing to adjudicate a claim and omitting a determination in the reasons are the same problem. The locations of the two defects must first be separated before one can decide which door to repair.
The basis for distinguishing omission of adjudication from omission of determination lies in the wording of the provision. The subject indicated by this wording is the court, the act is adjudication of a part of the claim, and the condition is the case in which that adjudication has been omitted. The object is the claim portion itself, not the description of the reasoning.
The same wording also fixes the procedure for handling it. Because the omitted claim portion is to be adjudicated continuously by that court, the place to be repaired is the adjudication that produces the disposition, and the defect is not a deficiency in the explanation of the reasons. On the basis of this distinction, the author takes the view that omission of adjudication of part of a claim and omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment differ in both object and procedure for handling them. If the object is the claim portion in the disposition, the matter is one of continued adjudication; if the object is a determination within the reasons, a different classification applies. If the two stages are mixed, one cannot decide where and how to repair.
The inconvenience this distinction gives rise to is a documentary reality. A party reading only the text of the judgment may find it difficult to distinguish whether the gap is an empty place in the disposition or an empty place in the reasons, and the work of comparing the disposition with the reasons is long and delicate. Nor can one ignore the point that requiring an individual answer to every argument makes judgments protracted and slows disposition. If the objects of the defects differ, bundling them in a single application does not accord with the wording.
In the synthetic scenario, Plaintiff A says that there is no answer to a decisive defense, and Defendant B contends that the purport of rejection is evident from the judgment as a whole. These facts alone cannot determine whether that defense is a matter to be adjudicated as part of the claim or a matter to be determined in the reasons. The stage-by-stage determination uses only the material recorded in the list of arguments, the reasons for judgment, the disposition, and the grounds for objection or grounds for retrial. The points that have not been confirmed—whether the important argument was itself submitted, and where it was determined—remain undetermined. If the complained-of part is confirmed to be a rejection within the substantive determination, the classification as omission of reasons is changed.
What this section permits is distinguishing the object and the procedure for handling it on the basis of the specified records; what it does not permit is filling absent records with conjecture or bundling an omission in the disposition with an omission of determination in the reasons in a single application.
5.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
On the premise that omission of a determination on an important matter affecting the judgment must be read together with the provision on grounds for retrial and its limitations, this section asks for the criteria distinguishing the two defects and the conditions that change the determination. Without re-unfolding the argument of the previous section, what this question addresses is, in the scene where Plaintiff A points to the absence of an answer to a decisive defense and Defendant B counters that a disposition of rejection is evident from the judgment as a whole, which classification is correct and what change would overturn the existing determination.
The relevant wording for this question is twofold. Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "(1) Where the court has omitted to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that claim portion." The subject spoken of here is the court, the act is adjudication of a part of the claim, and the condition is the case in which that adjudication has been omitted in the judgment. On the other hand, Article 451, paragraph (1), subparagraph 9 of the Civil Procedure Act makes "9. Where a determination has been omitted on an important matter affecting the judgment" a ground for bringing an action for retrial. On the wording alone, the objects do not overlap. The former targets the claim portion itself; the latter targets the determination on matters affecting the judgment.
Connecting these two wordings yields the conclusion of this section. Omission of adjudication means that the adjudication itself upon part of a claim is missing, while omission of determination means that a determination on an important matter is missing from the reasons. Because the objects differ, the procedures for handling them differ as well. The route provided by Article 212, paragraph (1) is that the court continues to adjudicate the omitted claim portion, while the place where omission of determination is raised as a ground for objection is the reasons for the judgment. On the basis of this distinction, if the complained-of part is confirmed to be a rejection within the substantive determination, the view is that the classification as omission of reasons must be changed. This is not a matter of naming, of calling one and the same empty place by two names; it is a matter of which object is repaired by which procedure.
The strongest counterargument targets the difficulty of separating the two defects on the documents alone. A party reading the judgment may find it hard to be certain whether the missing answer is missing from the disposition or from the determination in the reasons, and that uncertainty gives rise to the practical inconvenience of litigation costs and delay. Further concern follows that requiring an individual answer to every argument makes judgments protracted and slows disposition. Without erasing those unfavorable aspects, the answer remains maintained within a set scope. The reality that the two are hard to separate is no ground for merging the two classifications into one.
One fact is given in the synthetic scenario. Set against the foregoing conditions, the point indicated by A's assertion is an omission of determination, while B's rebuttal takes the view that this determination appears in the reasons as a rejection. If the complained-of part is confirmed to be a rejection within the substantive determination, the classification must be changed to omission in the reasons, and if the designated change is confirmed, the existing determination must be examined again. Yet the scenario gives no actual indication in the text of the judgment, so which side has been confirmed cannot be determined from this scenario alone. If confirmation is reached, the determination is changed; if it is not reached, the matter remains undetermined.
The conclusions this section permits are the distinction that omission of adjudication of part of a claim and omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment differ in object and procedure for handling them, and the conditional judgment that a confirmed change overturns the existing determination. What it does not permit is treating an omission in the disposition as the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons. Conversely, a conclusion merging the classifications on the sole ground that the two defects are difficult to distinguish on the documents alone also lies outside the scope of this section. The parts of the scenario's facts that remain unconfirmed as to which side they favor are left undetermined, and that lack of material is not immediately converted into unremediability.
5.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
The foundation is the distinction that omission of adjudication of part of a claim and omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment differ in object and procedure for handling them. The circumstance that the locations of the two defects are hard to separate on the documents alone is the situation at hand. What must be settled here is the form of the application.
As to omission of adjudication of part of a claim, Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where the court has omitted to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that claim portion" (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). This wording first indicates what the missing place consists of. The subject is the court, the object is a part of the claim, and the act is the state in which adjudication upon that claim portion is missing. Accordingly, omission of adjudication as spoken of here means that the adjudication itself upon part of the claim is missing. It is not a question of which sentence in the reasons to touch up, but of as to which claim no judgment was rendered.
This wording and the conclusion of this section meet. Omission of adjudication of part of a claim and omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment differ in object and procedure for handling them. One opens the route by which the remaining court proceeds to adjudicate the claim portion for which judgment is missing, while the other is a matter of ascertaining which determination is missing from the explanation of the judgment already rendered. The reason the two must be distinguished is that the objects to be repaired differ. One side takes up continued adjudication of the claim portion, while the other pinpoints the omission of determination within the reasons. Therefore, an omission in the disposition cannot be handled as the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons.
The loss and inconvenience this distinction targets are far from small. The counterargument that requiring an individual answer to every argument makes judgments protracted and slows disposition aims at that very point. The author does not alter the foregoing answer even with respect to this counterargument. If a single application resolved both defects at once, it would look convenient at the moment, but the adjudication of the missing claim portion and the explanation of the omitted determination would end up intermingled. The author's conclusion does not permit such convenience to the end. What this conclusion describes, however, is the classification of the application. It does not eliminate the inconvenience of the sheer volume of document drafting.
Set against the foregoing conditions, this circumstance divides the ground of dispute into two places. One is which claim portion the judgment failed to capture; the other is where in the reasons the determination on the defense appears. Yet on the synthetic scenario alone, one cannot confirm which document actually omitted what at which place, nor whether the important defense was itself submitted at all. Such items remain undetermined. Nor does the mere circumstance of being undetermined settle any classification.
What this section permits is narrow. A place where the adjudication itself upon part of a claim is missing is treated as an omission of adjudication of that claim portion, and a place where a determination is missing from the reasons is pinpointed as an omission of determination. What this section does not permit is handling both defects together in a single application.
5.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
Taking up the previous section's conclusion that an omission in the disposition cannot be handled as the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons, this section now asks whether the two defects are the same. Whether the part missing from the judgment is the adjudication itself upon the claim, or instead the determination supporting the conclusion already reached, changes the procedure to be chosen thereafter and the notation of the application. Setting out the criterion for that distinction is this section's task.
Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which addresses omission of adjudication of part of a claim, provides as follows: "Where the court has omitted to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that claim portion." (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act) The subject indicated by this wording is the court that rendered the judgment, the object is a part of the claim, and the act is the omission of adjudication upon that part. What is addressed here is the claim portion missing from the disposition, not a case in which the explanation in the reasons is insufficient.
Article 451, paragraph (1), subparagraph 9 of the same Civil Procedure Act makes "a determination has been omitted on an important matter affecting the judgment" (Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act) a ground for an action for retrial against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive. Whereas omission of adjudication of part of a claim, examined above, is filled by the court's continued adjudication, omission of a determination on an important matter must be pinpointed as a ground for objection to a final and conclusive judgment. Herein lies the reason the two defects must be divided according to whether the object is a claim portion or a matter of determination, and whether the handling is continued adjudication or a route of objection.
The point at which that distinction becomes inconvenient is that parties find it hard to write the two defects apart on the documents alone. In the scene where Plaintiff A asserts that there is no answer to a decisive defense and Defendant B contends that the purport of rejection is evident from the judgment as a whole, whether what is missing is the disposition or a determination may not be immediately apparent from the notation of the documents alone. Nevertheless, an omission in the disposition cannot be handled as the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons. The complaint remains that requiring an individual answer to every argument lengthens judgments and slows disposition, but the method of bundling them in a single application runs counter to the foregoing answer.
The materials taken as the standard when reading a judgment are the list of arguments, the reasons for judgment, and the disposition and the grounds for objection or grounds for retrial. Laying these materials side by side, where it is not confirmed whether the missing argument was itself submitted and where it was determined, one cannot assert categorically that a determination was missed. If the object of the complaint is confirmed to be a rejection within the substantive determination, the classification changes to omission in the reasons. Accordingly, the parts that cannot be determined as between the two on the scenario alone remain undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits extends no further than distinguishing omission of adjudication of part of a claim from omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment as differing in object and procedure for handling them. This distinction does not permit using the application form of one in place of the other as it stands. As for which missing place is to be viewed as belonging to which side, however, that must be confirmed in each individual judgment text according to the foregoing criteria.
5.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
When one cannot know why an unfavorable judgment was rendered, the route that opens differs according to where in the judgment the defect lies. In the scene where Plaintiff A asserts that there is no answer to a decisive defense and Defendant B contends that the purport of rejection is evident from the judgment as a whole, the criteria for distinguishing the two defects is first at issue. What this section addresses is whether the two defects are the same, and what that distinction signifies.
As the basis for answering this question, Article 212, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides as follows: "Where the court has omitted to adjudicate a part of a claim, the court shall continue to adjudicate that claim portion" (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). What this wording indicates is the court, the object is a part of the claim, and the act is the omission of adjudication upon that claim portion. The condition is limited to the case in which adjudication has been omitted as to a part of a claim. What is addressed here is the absence of the adjudication itself upon part of a claim, not a case in which the explanation of the reasons for judgment is deficient.
Linking this wording with the conclusion of this section, it emerges that omission of adjudication of part of a claim and omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment differ in object and procedure for handling them. Omission of adjudication means that the adjudication itself upon part of a claim is missing, in which case the court shall continue to adjudicate that claim portion (Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). By contrast, omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment is a case in which a determination on some matter is missing from the reasons of the judgment already rendered, and its handling presupposes not the continued adjudication of that provision but a separate route. The reason the two determinations are divided is that their objects differ. One is the unit of adjudication known as a part of a claim; the other is the unit of explanation known as a determination within the reasons for judgment.
The point that parties may find it difficult to separate the two defects on the documents alone is the strongest counterargument. If the judgment text is short and the connection between the arguments and the reasons is not apparent, it is difficult to identify whether something is missing from the disposition or whether a determination made in the reasons has been missed. That inconvenience is real. Added to this, the point that requiring an individual answer to every argument makes judgments protracted and slows disposition must also be taken into account. Even so, the foregoing answer does not change. The circumstance that the distinction is difficult cannot serve as ground for merging the two types; rather, it responds only in the direction of holding to the criterion while leaving the unfavorable aspects of the counterargument in place.
The facts relevant to this question in this scene are that Plaintiff A asserts there is no answer to a decisive defense and Defendant B contends that the purport of rejection is evident from the judgment as a whole. The dispute in this scene targets whether the matter falls within an omission of determination in the reasons, and does not contain any assertion that the adjudication itself upon part of a claim is missing. Since omission of adjudication is defined as the absence of the adjudication itself upon part of a claim, which type Plaintiff A's assertion belongs to cannot be determined from the scene alone. However, the determination condition is also given together, that if the complained-of part is confirmed to be a rejection within the substantive determination, the classification as omission of reasons is changed. Whether that condition is met remains undetermined, since there is no fact confirmed in the scene.
Accordingly, the conclusion this section permits is narrow. Failing to adjudicate a claim and missing a determination in the reasons are not the same, and omission of adjudication of part of a claim and omission of determination in the reasons for a judgment differ in object and procedure for handling them. Conversely, handling an omission in the disposition as the same application as an omission of determination in the reasons is a conclusion this section does not permit.
5.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
앞 절에서 이어지는 것은 판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항에 관한 판단 누락은 재심사유 규정과 그 제한을 함께 보아야 한다는 점이다. 이 절에서 새로 다루는 것은 그 판단 누락을 주장할 때 원문의 문언이 어디까지 판정 근거가 되는가라는 물음이다. 합성 장면에서 원고 A는 결정적 항변에 대한 답이 없다고 주장하고 피고 B는 판결 전체에서 배척 취지가 드러난다고 다투고 있으므로, 어느 문이 빠졌는지를 정하지 않으면 고칠 문도 정해지지 않는다. 따라서 앞 절의 결론을 재현하지 않고, 지금 해당 문언만으로 통로의 판정 기준을 세우는 일이 남는다.
이번 물음에 해당하는 문언은 세 구절이다. 먼저 재심의 소가 열리는 조건과 그 한정을 담은 조문은 "①다음 각호 가운데 어느 하나에 해당하면 확정된 종국판결에 대하여 재심의 소를 제기할 수 있다. 다만, 당사자가 상소에 의하여 그 사유를 주장하였거나, 이를 알고도 주장하지 아니한 때에는 그러하지 아니하다."고 규정한다(민사소송법 제451조). 여기서 주체는 당사자이고, 행위는 확정된 종국판결에 대한 재심의 소의 제기이며, 조건은 각호 가운데 어느 하나에 해당하는 사유의 존재와 함께 단서가 정한 상소에서의 주장 태도이다. 다음으로 그 각호 가운데 하나인 사유는 "9. 판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항에 관하여 판단을 누락한 때"로 특정되어 있다(민사소송법 제451조). 이 문언은 대상을 '판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항'에 관한 '판단'의 누락으로 한정하므로, 이 구절만으로는 주문 자체의 누락이 같은 사유에 들어가는지가 정해지지 않는다.
남은 조문은 청구 일부의 재판 누락에 관한 것이다. 이 문언은 주체를 법원으로, 행위를 청구의 일부에 대한 재판의 누락으로, 처리를 그 법원의 계속 재판으로 정하고 있어, 대상과 처리 절차가 앞선 판단 누락의 문언과 다르다. 이 절의 결론은 이 대조에서 나온다. 해당 원문 문언만을 판결을 이해하는 데 맞는 하자로 불복할 통로의 판정 근거로 쓰고, 그 범위 안의 문언만 적용하며 판결 이유나 다른 항으로 확장하지 않는다. 재판 누락과 이유의 판단 누락을 구별해야 하는 까닭은 전자에 대해서는 계속 재판의 문이 열려 있고 후자에 대해서는 재심사유와 그 제한을 함께 보아야 하는 문언이 따로 놓여 있기 때문이다. 두 단계를 한 신청으로 뭉개면 각 문언이 정한 주체·행위·조건을 지나치게 읽게 된다.
그러나 가장 강한 반론은 이 구별이 실제 문서에서 쉽게 그어지지 않는다는 점을 겨냥한다. 당사자가 두 결함을 문서만으로 나누기 어려울 수 있고, 판결문을 읽는 자리에서 주문의 빈 곳과 이유의 빈 곳이 같은 장면으로 보일 수 있다. 나아가 모든 주장에 개별 답변을 요구하면 판결이 장황해지고 처리도 늦어진다는 점이 함께 지적된다. 이 손실과 불편을 지워서는 안 된다. 그래도 앞의 답은 그대로다. 두 문언이 대상과 처리 절차를 다르게 정하고 있으므로, 문서만으로 나누기 어렵다는 사정은 분류를 섞는 근거가 되지 못한다.
합성 장면에서 관련된 사실만 꺼내어 대조하면, 원고 A가 결정적 항변에 대한 답이 없다고 주장하는 부분은 어디에서 판단되었는지를 묻는 쪽에 가깝고, 피고 B는 판결 전체에서 배척 취지가 드러난다고 다투므로 그 답이 실제로 이유 안에 놓였는지가 쟁점이 된다. 이 대조에는 주장 목록, 판결 이유, 주문, 불복 또는 재심 사유를 쓴다. 그런데 이 장면만으로는 중요한 주장 자체가 제출되었는지, 또 어디에서 판단되었는지가 확인되지 않으므로 그 부분은 미확정으로 남는다. 지적된 결함이 법정 불복사유로 특정되고 주장의 처리와 주문의 이유가 연결되어 있으면 판정의 통로가 열리지만, 단순한 결론 불만만 있고 이유 누락·모순 또는 중요한 판단 누락에 해당하는 부분을 특정하지 못하면 막힌다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 세 구절의 문언만으로 재판 누락과 판단 누락의 대상과 처리 절차가 다르다는 구별을 세울 수 있고, 주문 누락을 이유의 판단 누락과 같은 신청으로 묶지 않는 한정을 지킬 수 있다. 반대로 이 문언을 넘어서 판결 이유의 다른 결함이나 다른 항으로 그 구별을 넓히는 결론은 이 절이 허용하지 않는다. 장면으로 확정되지 않은 사실을 채워 넣어 승패나 이행 결과를 단정하는 것도 여기에 해당하지 않는다.
5.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
전 단계에서 청구를 재판하지 않은 것과 이유에서 판단을 놓친 것은 같은가라는 물음을 다루었고, 이제는 판결을 이해하고 맞는 하자로 불복할 통로 안에서 다시 나누어 판정할 부분은 무엇인가라는 물음이 남는다. 이 물음은 두 결함을 문서상 한 자리에서 함께 다루는 대신, 빠진 내용이 주문인지 판결 이유인지에 따라 처리할 신청과 근거 조문을 가르는 문제를 다룬다. 현장에서 당사자가 두 가지를 한꺼번에 문제 삼더라도 판정은 구분되어야 한다.
판결을 읽을 때 판단의 빈자리를 찾는 일은 청구 일부의 재판 누락과 판결 이유의 판단 누락이라는 두 개념을 나누는 것으로 시작한다. 여기서 문언이 가리키는 대상은 청구의 일부이고, 행위는 재판의 누락이며, 조건은 그 청구부분에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 경우이다. 따라서 이 조문이 다루는 결함은 판결 이유의 문장에서 빠진 판단이 아니라 청구에 대한 결정 자체가 빠진 것이다.
이 문언과 이 절의 결론을 연결하면, 재판 누락은 청구 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 것을 뜻한다. 반면 이유의 판단 누락은 청구와 주문은 정해졌으나 판결 이유에서 중요한 사항에 관한 판단이 빠진 경우를 가리킨다. 두 구별은 처리 절차가 다르다는 데서 의미가 있다. 청구 일부가 재판에서 빠졌다면 법원이 그 부분을 계속하여 재판하는 경로가 문언상 열려 있고, 반대로 이유의 판단 누락은 다른 규율의 적용을 전제로 한다. 다만 본 단계는 이 두 결함의 대상과 처리 경로가 서로 다르다는 구별만 확정하며, 그 이상의 요건이나 효과를 새로 더하지 않는다.
가장 강한 반론은 문서상의 어려움을 겨냥한다. 당사자가 두 결함을 문서만으로 나누기 어려울 수 있고, 판결문이 길거나 주문과 이유가 얽혀 있는 경우에는 어떤 자리가 빠졌는지 판단하기 힘들다. 더 나아가 모든 주장에 개별 답변을 요구하면 판결이 장황해지고 처리도 늦어질 수 있다는 불리함도 남는다. 문서 판독의 어려움은 확인을 어렵게 할 뿐, 두 결함의 구별 기준 자체를 없애지 않는다. 따라서 같은 신청으로 묶는 처리는 허용되지 않는다는 결론이 유지된다.
이 장면에서 다루는 쟁점은 청구 일부가 재판에서 빠졌는지가 아니라, 주장과 그에 대한 답변이 판결 이유 어딘가에서 처리되었는지이다. 판정을 위해서는 주장 목록, 판결 이유, 주문, 불복 또는 재심 사유를 놓고, 지적한 결함이 청구의 일부에 대한 재판 자체의 누락인지, 아니면 이유에서의 판단 누락인지를 특정한다. 다만 중요한 주장 자체가 제출되었는지, 또 어디에서 판단되었는지 확인되지 않은 부분은 미확정으로 남는다. 장면만으로 원고 또는 피고 어느 쪽이 맞는지 확정할 수 없고, 확정할 수 없는 사항을 채우지 않는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 청구 일부의 재판 누락과 판결 이유의 판단 누락은 대상과 처리 절차가 다르고, 주문 누락을 이유의 판단 누락과 같은 신청으로 처리할 수 없다. 여기서 재판 누락은 청구 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 것을 뜻한다는 정의만 함께 둔다. 이 조건을 바꾸어도 청구 일부의 재판 누락과 그 처리 경로를 새로 만들지는 않는다.
5.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
앞 단계에서 청구를 재판하지 않은 것과 이유에서 판단을 놓친 것은 같지 않다고 정리했으므로, 이제 그 구별을 불복의 통로로 옮겨 보아야 한다. 통로가 열리는가 막히는가, 아니면 확인 전에 멈추는가를 가르는 기준이 무엇인지가 여기서의 물음이다. 문헌상 정해진 결론은 주장의 처리와 주문의 이유가 연결되어 있고 지적한 결함이 법정 불복사유로 특정되는 경우를 따로 놓고 본다.
이 물음에 해당하는 법문부터 확인한다. 민사소송법 제212조는 "①법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다."라고 정하고 있다. 여기서 말하는 주체는 판결을 선고한 법원이고, 행위는 빠진 청구 부분에 대한 재판의 계속이며, 조건은 청구의 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 누락된 경우다. 이 문언은 청구 일부의 재판 누락이라는 하나의 하자만을 겨냥한다.
그 조건과 이 절의 결론을 연결하면, 통로가 열리는 판단은 주장의 처리와 주문의 이유가 이어져 있고 지적한 결함이 법정 불복사유로 특정된 경우다. 이때 두 개념을 나누어 보아야 하는 까닭은 대상이 다르기 때문이다. 앞서 정의한 바대로 재판 누락은 청구 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 것이고, 판단 누락은 이유에서 어떤 사항에 대한 판단이 빠진 것이다. 민사소송법 제451조는 "9. 판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항에 관하여 판단을 누락한 때"를 재심사유의 하나로 들고 있으며, 그 사유의 문언은 이유의 판단 누락을 겨냥한다. 다만 "①다음 각호 가운데 어느 하나에 해당하면 확정된 종국판결에 대하여 재심의 소를 제기할 수 있다. 다만, 당사자가 상소에 의하여 그 사유를 주장하였거나, 이를 알고도 주장하지 아니한 때에는 그러하지 아니하다."라는 단서가 함께 붙어 있어, 사유의 특정과 그 제한은 같은 판단 안에서 본다. 같은 신청 양식 안에 두 결함을 섞어 넣을 수는 없다.
가장 강한 반론은 문서만으로는 두 결함을 나누기 어렵다는 데 있다. 판결문에는 주문과 이유가 함께 놓여 있고, 읽는 사람에 따라 빠진 자리가 어느 쪽인지 판단이 갈릴 수 있다. 나아가 모든 주장에 개별로 답을 요구하면 판결이 장황해지고 처리도 늦어진다는 현실적인 불편도 반론의 한 축이다. 이 불편을 지우지는 못한다. 전자는 청구 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 경우에 해당하고 후자는 중요한 사항에 대한 판단이 빠진 경우에 해당한다. 각각이 겨냥하는 법정 사유가 다르기 때문이다. 반론의 불리함은 남기되, 분류를 섞어 버리는 처리는 허용되지 않는다.
정해진 장면에서 이 물음에 속한 사실은 하나다. 이 장면만으로는 불만의 대상이 주문인지 이유인지, 또 중요한 사항에 대한 판단이 실제로 빠졌는지가 확정되지 않는다. 다만 판정의 조건은 분명하다. 반대로 확인이 되지 않으면 미확정에 머무르고, 중요한 주장 자체가 제출되었는지 또는 어디에서 판단되었는지 확인되지 않은 경우에도 같은 자리에 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 주장의 처리와 주문의 이유가 연결되어 있고 지적한 결함이 법정 불복사유로 특정되면 불복의 통로가 열린다. 단순한 결론 불만만 있고 주장하는 이유 누락·모순 또는 중요한 판단 누락에 해당하는 부분을 특정하지 못하면 그 통로는 막힌다. 중요한 주장이 제출되었는지 확인되지 않으면 판단을 유보한다. 청구 일부의 재판 누락이라는 다른 결함을 같은 신청으로 끌어오면 이 구별은 무너진다.
5.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
앞 절에서는 주장의 처리와 주문의 이유가 연결되어 있고 지적한 결함이 법정 불복사유로 특정된 경우에는 작동하고, 단순한 결론 불만만 있고 주장하는 이유 누락·모순 또는 중요한 판단 누락에 해당하는 부분을 특정하지 못한 경우에는 막히며, 중요 주장 자체가 제출되었는지 또는 어디에서 판단되었는지 확인되지 않은 경우에는 미확정으로 남는다고 보았다. 이제 청구를 재판하지 않은 것과 이유에서 판단을 놓친 것은 같은가라는 물음을 연다.
청구 일부의 재판 누락에 관한 문언은, 법원이 청구의 일부에 대하여 재판을 누락한 경우에는 그 청구부분에 대하여는 그 법원이 계속하여 재판한다(민사소송법 제212조 제1항)라고 정한다. 여기서 주체는 판결을 선고한 법원이고, 행위는 청구의 일부에 대한 재판 누락이며, 조건은 그 누락된 청구부분이 남아 있다는 것이다. 이 조항이 다루는 대상은 청구부분 자체다.
한편 판결에 영향을 미칠 중요한 사항에 관하여 판단을 누락한 때(민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호)는 재심사유의 하나로 열려 있다. 확정된 종국판결에 대하여 재심의 소를 제기할 수 있지만, 다만, 당사자가 상소에 의하여 그 사유를 주장하였거나, 이를 알고도 주장하지 아니한 때에는 그러하지 아니하다(민사소송법 제451조 제1항 본문·단서)는 제한이 함께 붙는다. 앞의 재판 누락은 빠진 청구부분을 같은 법원이 이어서 다루는 처리를, 뒤의 판단 누락은 이미 선고된 확정판결에 대한 사유의 특정을 요구한다. 대상과 처리 절차가 다른 이유가 여기에 있다.
글의 한 자리가 비어 있는 듯 보이지만 그것이 주문에서 빠진 청구부분인지, 이유에서 답을 받지 못한 항변인지는 판결문만으로 분명하지 않을 때가 있다. 또 모든 주장에 개별 답변을 요구하면 판결이 장황해지고 처리도 늦어진다는 불편도 크다. 법이 정한 대상과 절차가 다르기 때문에, 문서 표면의 공백만으로 분류를 합칠 수는 없다.
합성 장면에서 원고 A는 결정적 항변에 대한 답이 없다고 주장하고 피고 B는 판결 전체에서 배척 취지가 드러난다고 다투는데, 이 다툼은 주문의 일부가 비었는지와 무관하다. 원고 A가 지적하는 자리는 주문이 아니라 이유의 판단이며, 이는 판결 이유와 주문의 대조로 특정할 몫이다. 다만 장면만으로는 중요 주장 자체가 제출되었는지, 또 어느 자리에서 판단되었는지 확인되지 않으므로, 그 판단 누락이 재심사유에 해당하는지는 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절에서 확인할 수 있는 것은 청구 일부의 재판 누락과 판결 이유의 판단 누락이 대상과 처리 절차로 갈린다는 구별뿐이다. 따라서 재판 누락은 청구 일부에 대한 재판 자체가 빠진 것을 뜻하며, 그 청구부분을 이어서 재판하는 처리의 대상이 된다. 반대로 이유의 판단 누락을 주문의 일부 미재판 신청으로 바꾸어 처리하는 것은 이 절이 허용하지 않는 방향이다. 그 구별을 전제로, 다음은 판결 이유의 결함에 관한 물음으로 넘어간다. 이유의 결함을 어떻게 좁혀야 하는가?