손해배상
1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. While the Plaintiff, on March 30, 2016, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to seek payment of KRW 17,000,000 as compensation for tort on the ground that it became impossible to collect the said C’s deposit claim by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff by a third party and filing an application for suspension of compulsory execution against the Plaintiff, on the basis that the Plaintiff’s final judgment subject to judgment was based on the claim to return a partnership business share against C, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 11, 2017. The court of first instance appealed against the Plaintiff (this court’s judgment 2017Na2704) but the appellate court rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 14, 2017 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to retrial”) and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 14, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da13297, Apr. 16, 2017).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. If the Plaintiff’s assertion did not raise an objection against the Plaintiff against a third party, the Plaintiff could seize the Plaintiff’s deposit claims and obtain full reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s claims against C. However, even though the Defendant was unable to collect his/her deposit claims due to the above act, the judgment subject to a retrial, which did not recognize the Defendant’s liability for damages, did not err in its judgment on important matters affecting the judgment, and there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment is omitted with respect to important matters that may affect the judgment" means an attack and defense submitted by a party in a lawsuit, which may affect the judgment.