[소유권이전등기절차이행(재심)청구사건][고집1961민,90]
The period allowed for filing a lawsuit for retrial if there are several grounds for retrial
The period of filing a retrial shall commence independently if there are several grounds for retrial, and even if one of the grounds for retrial was instituted within a legitimate period of time, if it is intended to add a separate ground for retrial during the proceeding of the lawsuit, it shall be within 30 days from the date on which the separate grounds for retrial are known, and it shall not be asserted lawfully after the lapse of that period.
Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 66Da1587 decided Oct. 4, 1966 (Article 22(6) of the Civil Act; Article 22(6)2 of the Civil Act; Article 426(12) of the Civil Act; Article 428 of the Civil Act; Article 226(1)
Reopening Plaintiff
Defendant’s retrial
Daegu High Court of the first instance (4290 Civil Code110)
The action for retrial on this case shall be dismissed.
Expenses for the litigation for reexamination shall be borne by the plaintiff for reexamination.
The purport of the request for retrial is that the judgment of the court below was rendered on June 12, 290 with respect to the claim for the transfer of land ownership No. 110 by the Daegu High Court, Daegu High Court, 4290. The judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on June 12, 4290 (the original judgment is altered as follows. The defendant is also aware of the ground for retrial of the second instance judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive on the part of the defendant 2, 1, 2 and 3, from the main text of drawings (a) to the 1, 36th (c) points in the 1, 3th (d) point in the 2nd and 4th (2nd) point in the 2nd and 3th (C) point in the 2nd and 4th (a) point in the 2nd and 3th). The judgment of the court below became final and conclusive on the part of the defendant 1, 201, which became final and conclusive on the ground for retrial.
The defendant-appellant of the new trial stated that the defendant-appellant of the non-party 1 was a witness non-party 1 of the court below's order and the defendant-appellant of the non-party 1 of the court below's decision was an oral argument before the merits and the defendant-appellant of the non-party 1 of the court below's decision became final and conclusive on December 24, 290, despite the fact that the criminal judgment on the non-party 1 of the witness in the main lawsuit was immediately known to the effect that it was final and conclusive on December 24, 4290. The non-party 1's testimony was not adopted as evidence in the judgment of the court of the second instance, and the non-party 2's testimony was not examined in the second instance, and it was not possible to render a judgment on the main lawsuit in the contents of the testimony, and the non-party 3 of the court below's non-party 1 submitted the evidence of the first instance court and the evidence of the non-party 1 and the defendant-appellant 2 of the first instance court.
The court below found the defendant's conviction against the non-party 1 as to the non-party 1 on December 24, 290 of the fact that there was a final and conclusive judgment as to the case of claiming the registration of transfer of the land ownership No. 110 in the short-term 4290 by the plaintiff head of Ansan-gu Review, which became final and conclusive at the Daegu High Court on December 24, 4290. The defendant's conviction against the non-party 2 on November 13, 4291, which became final and conclusive at the time of the first conviction, is no dispute between the parties. According to the evidence No. 6 and evidence No. 8, the non-party 1's conviction as to the non-party 3's above perjury is a witness's testimony in the first instance of the above civil case, and it cannot be viewed that the non-party 2's testimony in the final and conclusive judgment of the court below was not admitted as evidence and it cannot be viewed that the non-party 1's new trial is no more than 19's oral pleading.
Therefore, the lawsuit of the plaintiff in this case of the plaintiff in this case of the plaintiff in this case is defective without making a judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion of the plaintiff in this case, and thus, it is not dismissed due to its illegality, so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the litigation costs in this case.
Judges Kang Jung-hee (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-sik