손해배상(자)
1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the review shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.
The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of damages and damages for delay due to the traffic accident as of January 28, 2007, the Daegu District Court rendered an order of winning part of the Plaintiffs on May 4, 2011.
B. Accordingly, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant appealed to the Daegu District Court Decision 201Na10042, and the said court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal on August 23, 2012 and rendered a judgment of citing part of the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). The Plaintiffs’ agent was served an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on August 31, 2012.
C. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the foregoing and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da81302, but the appeal was dismissed by the lower court’s decision on December 27, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by serving the Plaintiffs’ representatives on December 31, 2012.
Since then, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the judgment subject to a retrial under Section 1 as Daegu District Court 2013Na54, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for a retrial on November 29, 2013 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and the Plaintiffs’ agents were served an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on December 4, 2013.
E. The Plaintiffs appealed and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da10180, but, on April 10, 2014, the final appeal was dismissed by the lower court’s decision, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by serving the Plaintiffs’ representatives on April 15, 2014.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. Supreme Court Decision 2012Da81302 Decided December 31, 2012, which rendered a final appeal on the judgment subject to a review by the Plaintiffs’ claim 1, was served on the representative who did not grant the power of representation on December 31, 2012, and therefore, whether the period of review is complied with as of the above point of time