현상광고보수지급청구
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:
On July 4, 2008, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant’s refusal to pay a monetary reward to the Plaintiff was primarily null and void, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition in preliminary respect (this Court Decision 2010Nu41446), and this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 6, 201.
The Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 201Du19543, but on November 24, 2011, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
2. The Plaintiff, as to whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful, expressed the purport of requesting a retrial as to the judgment subject to retrial, on the grounds that there exist grounds for retrial, such as Article 451(1)2, 8 (where a judgment based on a judgment or administrative disposition was changed subsequent to a judgment), and 9 (Omission of Judgment) of the Civil Procedure Act, in the judgment subject to retrial.
In exceptional cases where there is a serious defect in the final judgment, re-adjudication is a method of appeal to a final judgment recognized as complementary in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act for the purpose of seeking the revocation of the judgment and the judgment in lieu of the principal case in the form of
However, it is clear that the purport of the Plaintiff’s request for retrial is beyond the revocation (revision) of the judgment subject to retrial, and it is not permissible under the current law.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.
In addition, when examining the existence or absence of the grounds for retrial, it is difficult to recognize that there is a ground for retrial, as alleged in the judgment subject to retrial, even if all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff were considered.
The Plaintiff’s assertion does not relate to the existence of the grounds for retrial, which are stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
The plaintiff in the oral proceedings of this case.