대여금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking a judgment, such as the purport of the claim, with the Daegu District Court’s Sung Branch Branch of 2014Kadan1524, and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 14, 2015.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as the Daegu District Court 2015Na2315, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on October 7, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.
In other words, the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da68263, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s final appeal on January 28, 2016, and the instant judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on February 1, 2016.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and Nonparty C traded with the Plaintiff using a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s appeal was unfairly dismissed in the instant judgment subject to a retrial. As such, there exist grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The Defendant asserts that the evidence of the instant judgment subject to a retrial was in blank documents, and evidence No. 5(a) was forged. 6 of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and that there was grounds for retrial falling under “when the documents and other items that served as evidence of the judgment were forged or altered.”
B. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for retrial under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be determined on the grounds other than lack of evidence when a judgment of conviction or judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or evidence is insufficient in the case of paragraph (1)4 through 7