손해배상(기)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The fact that the first instance court of Ulsan District Court 2009Kadan21712 rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 16, 2009 in the case that the Plaintiff filed a final judgment subject to a retrial against the Defendant, and the fact that the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 1, 2010 in the above court 2010Na682, which is the appellate court, was rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal and that it became final and conclusive on July 21, 2010, is significant in this court.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for a retrial is that the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment due to the Defendant’s perjury, and the Plaintiff and his family members suffered emotional distress. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay 22.5 million won and delay damages to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.
Although the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed by judgment different from this, and the judgment subject to a retrial dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. Thus, the above judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under "when the judgment was omitted with respect to important matters affecting the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment on the existence or absence of a ground for retrial refers to cases where a judgment is not clearly indicated among the reasons for the judgment concerning the method of attack and defense that a party submitted in a lawsuit and has an impact on the judgment, as the method of attack and defense that the party submitted in the lawsuit. Once a judgment was rendered, the determination
or the reasons leading to the judgment was not sufficiently explained.
or the grounds for rejecting the claims of the parties are not individually explained.
Even if this cannot be said to be an omission of judgment as referred to in the above law.
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da6528 Decided December 27, 1991, Supreme Court Decision 99Da62838 Decided January 25, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da102827 Decided April 29, 201, etc.).