손해배상(의)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The gist of the grounds for retrial was that the Plaintiff did not make a judgment in the judgment subject to retrial, even though the Plaintiff asserted and proved that from the first instance court of the judgment subject to retrial the Plaintiff’s wife during the treatment process, and that the Plaintiff had suffered pain for ten years, the Plaintiff did not have made a judgment in the judgment subject to retrial. Accordingly, the claim for retrial of this case should be accepted.
2. Determination
A. A lawsuit for a retrial on a civil judgment may be brought only when there are grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “Act”).
Despite the allegations and demands for admission regarding the grounds for retrial by the court, the plaintiff does not express whether or not the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case on any ground among the grounds for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act. However, if we see the above arguments, it seems that it constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. (1) A lawsuit on the determination of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Act is filed within 30 days from the date a party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after a judgment became final and conclusive (Article 456(1) of the Act). This period is a peremptory period.
(2) Article 451(1)9 of the Act provides that “When any judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment,” the grounds for retrial are deemed to be grounds for retrial.
However, the existence of grounds for retrial on the ground that there was omission in a judgment of a final judgment can be seen by read the judgment. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it should be deemed that the existence of grounds for retrial was known when the original judgment was served, and whether the judgment was omitted.
(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff served the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on April 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial.