CAJ | 학술논문

再审事由在外观上包含程序性、实体性再审事由和其他再审事由，在内核上包含无效之诉和回复原状之诉的再审事由，内核上的这种事由归类只依据原审误判有无因果关系，但又从不忽略程序性事由、实体性事由和其他再审事由。原审误判无因果关系的是无效之诉的再审事由，有因果关系的是回复原状之诉的再审事由。以往的解读已有不少的误读，现第200条删除了原第179条第2款中的前段——即“对违反法定程序可能影响案件正确判决、裁定的情形”，这就一方面因删除“对违反法定程序”（可能影响案件正确判决、裁定的情形）而明显忽视了程序性再审事由，另一方面因删除（对违反法定程序）“可能影响案件正确判决、裁定的情形”而明显忽视了要求因果关系要件的回复原状之诉的再审事由，从而也就淡化了无效之诉的再审事由和回复原状之诉的再审事由的区别，而这种内核性再审事由恰好又是最重要的再审事由。
재심사유재외관상포함정서성、실체성재심사유화기타재심사유，재내핵상포함무효지소화회복원상지소적재심사유，내핵상적저충사유귀류지의거원심오판유무인과관계，단우종불홀략정서성사유、실체성사유화기타재심사유。원심오판무인과관계적시무효지소적재심사유，유인과관계적시회복원상지소적재심사유。이왕적해독이유불소적오독，현제200조산제료원제179조제2관중적전단——즉“대위반법정정서가능영향안건정학판결、재정적정형”，저취일방면인산제“대위반법정정서”（가능영향안건정학판결、재정적정형）이명현홀시료정서성재심사유，령일방면인산제（대위반법정정서）“가능영향안건정학판결、재정적정형”이명현홀시료요구인과관계요건적회복원상지소적재심사유，종이야취담화료무효지소적재심사유화회복원상지소적재심사유적구별，이저충내핵성재심사유흡호우시최중요적재심사유。
From the appearance, retrial reason contains procedural retrial reason, substantive retrial reason and other retrial reasons, but from the inside, it contains retrial reason of annulment suit and retrial reason of litigation for restitution. This classification is based only on the causal relationship with the original error judgment, not on the basis of procedural reason or substantive reason or other retrial reasons, but they should be never ignored. The reason that has no causal rela- tionship with the original error judgment is called retrial reason of annulment suit, and the reason that has causal relation- ship with the original error judgment is called retrial reason of litigation for restitution. As to this regard, many of existing interpretation are misleading. The new amended Civil Procedure Law deleted the front part of the para. 2 of original Article 179, that＂ is in violation of legal procedure may affect the correctness of the judgment or written order of the situation. On the one hand, due to delete the circumstances of ＂in violation of legal procedures＂（which may affect the correctness of the judgment or written order） , the new Civil Procedure Law obviously ignored procedural retrial reason. On the other hand, due to deleting the circumstances of in violation of legal procedures, the new Law apparently ignored retrial reason of litiga- tion for restitution based on causal relationship. Thus the new Law played down the difference between retrial reason of an- nulment suit and retrial reason of litigation for restitution, but these innate retrial reasons are precisely the most important reasons.