유치권부존재확인
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiff).
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are either a dispute between the parties or substantial in this Court:
On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the confirmation of existence of the right of retention, asserting that there was no lien for the real estate in this case as the Changwon District Court Branch 2013Kadan1870, the Defendant did not exist.
B. On July 26, 2013, the foregoing court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and the Defendant did not appeal despite being served with the above judgment on July 31, 2013, and thus, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on August 15, 2013.
2. Determination on the grounds for retrial
A. The defendant asserts that there is a ground for retrial since there is a new evidence proving the defendant's right of retention after the judgment was rendered for retrial.
However, a lawsuit for a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment shall be permitted only when there exist the grounds stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Inasmuch as “the discovery of new evidence” alleged by the Defendant does not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act, a request for retrial on the grounds
B. Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when a false statement by a witness, appraiser or interpreter, or a false statement by a party or legal representative by a party examination becomes evidence of a judgment,” as grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the same Act, a lawsuit for retrial may be instituted only in cases where “when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive for an act subject to punishment, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or of a fine for negligence is impossible for reasons other than lack of evidence” under Article 45
Therefore, if the requirements of Article 451 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act are not satisfied with respect to the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (2), a lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.