대여금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 1, 2010 was rendered in the loans rendered by the Ulsan District Court 2009Gau990, the first instance court, the first instance court, the case against which the Plaintiff filed a final judgment subject to a retrial against the Defendant, and the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 30, 2010, was rendered final and conclusive on October 21, 2010, the said appellate court, rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 30, 2010.
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the grounds for retrial was that the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of KRW 2.7 million out of the loans from Nonparty B, due to a judge’s improper judgment, who is a public official belonging to the Defendant, and caused mental suffering therefrom, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3.7 million in compensation for damages ( KRW 2.7 million in property damage equivalent to the loan), and delay damages.
Although the judgment of the court of first instance was determined differently and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and the judgment subject to a retrial dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, the above judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under "when the judgment was omitted with respect to important matters affecting the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “When a judgment on important matters affecting a judgment has been omitted” as to the existence or absence of a cause for retrial refers to the cases where a party’s attack and defense was presented in a lawsuit, and the judgment is not clearly indicated among the reasons for the judgment, as to the means of attack and defense that may affect the judgment. Once
or the reasons leading to the judgment was not sufficiently explained.
or the grounds for rejecting the claims of the parties are not individually explained.
Even if this cannot be said to be an omission of judgment as referred to in the above law.
Supreme Court Decision 199Na1088 delivered on December 2, 1991