손해배상(자)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).
purport, purport, ..
1. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. Reopening of procedure can only be brought against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive, a lawsuit for retrial against a final and conclusive judgment is unlawful, and a lawsuit for retrial is not legitimate even if the judgment becomes final and conclusive between the lawsuits filed prior to the final and conclusive judgment that were not dismissed.
(2) The instant judgment subject to a retrial was rendered on May 13, 2015 and became final and conclusive on June 2, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1132, Jul. 8, 1980). However, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on June 2, 2015. The instant lawsuit filed on May 18, 2015, which was the date on which the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, is apparent
B. Meanwhile, as seen in the context of the purport of a request for retrial, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there exists a ground for retrial for omission of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act on the original decision, which was made by dismissing the decision subject to quasi-deliberation, based on the “decision on dismissal of a request for on-site inspection of the Plaintiff on July 14, 2014,” which was made in the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to retrial, as seen in the context of the purport of
Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "in cases where a ruling or an order, which is entitled to be dissatisfied with the protocol or immediate appeal under Article 220, has become final and conclusive and there exist grounds as stipulated in Article 451 (1), a retrial may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 451 through 460 of the final and conclusive judgment, if there exist grounds as stipulated in Article 451 (1)." This is limited to "a ruling or order, which is entitled to be dissatisfied with the final and conclusive judgment," but this is merely a representative case, and therefore, in cases where a ruling or order becomes final and conclusive independently regardless of a final and conclusive ruling or final and conclusive judgment, it is only limited to cases that have the nature of a final and conclusive judgment, an application for quasi-adjudication may be filed independently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order