구상금
The request for retrial is dismissed.
The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Plaintiff for retrial).
The gist of the grounds for the request for retrial of this case is that, although the defendant-Appellant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the plaintiff for retrial, and the defendant) received the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial record in the litigation of the judgment subject to retrial, the defendant, even though there was no litigation capacity to receive the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial record as the second disabled under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appellate brief was not submitted within the deadline, and thus, the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the defendant to the defendant with no intelligence to separate the objection is inappropriate, and the judgment subject to retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (when there is any defect in granting the authority of
However, since it is difficult to view that materials submitted by the Defendant were in a state without intelligence at the time of receiving the notification of the receipt of the trial record, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the supplementary service of the notification of the trial record against the Defendant cannot be deemed unlawful, and there is no ground for retrial as stipulated in Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the Defendant knows, is not acknowledged.
Therefore, the retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.