손해배상(자)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1.The following facts of basic facts are apparent in, or obvious to, this Court:
The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 130,000,000 from the Defendant regarding the traffic accidents listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant traffic accidents”), and waive all rights against the Defendant, and not to file any civil lawsuit or objection (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
After that, the Plaintiff, “After the instant agreement, there was additional damage to the Plaintiff,” and the instant agreement was null and void as it constitutes an unfair juristic act, or cancelled as an expression of intent due to mistake, and thus has no validity, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the additional amount of damage, KRW 5,011,880, which is the additional amount of damage incurred due to the instant traffic accident, and the damages incurred therefrom.” In the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for damages claim against the Daejeon District Court Red support 2009Gau3221, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on October 19, 2010.
B. Accordingly, while the Plaintiff appealed as Daejeon District Court 2010Na17244, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 26, 2011. The Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 201Da17656 again, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 26, 201.
After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment of Daejeon District Court No. 201Na128, Jan. 26, 2011, which was sentenced by the Daejeon District Court No. 2010Na17244, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a claim for an additional trial pursuant to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act by asserting that the instant agreement was omitted with respect to the judgment of Daejeon District Court 2010Na17244 on the ground that it was a juristic act or an unfair juristic act contrary to social order and thus null and void. However, the said court filed a claim for an additional trial on February 3, 2012.