임대차보증금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff and plaintiff for retrial).
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:
A. On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order claiming the payment of the deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 which was not returned to the Seoul District Court, Jincheon District Court, and the delayed damages thereof. The Defendant raised an objection to the payment order and proceeded with the legal proceedings (Seoul District Court Decision 2018DaGa31444, Dec. 20, 2018). The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on December 20, 2018.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Changwon District Court 2019Na184, and filed a counterclaim from the appellate court to 2019Na 55160.
On October 24, 2019, the court of the trial before the retrial rendered a judgment dismissing all the Defendant’s appeal and counterclaim claim (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”) (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”).
(c)
Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on January 16, 2020, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the Supreme Court Decision 2019Da29747, 2019Da29754 (Counterclaim).
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case
A. The Defendant’s argument that the instant judgment subject to a retrial was contrary to the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8323, 2005Da8330 Decided September 28, 2005, and thus, the instant judgment subject to a retrial runs counter to the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8330 Decided September 28, 200. Therefore, there exists a ground for reexamination under Article 45
B. The re-examination under Article 451 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act is established for the purpose of coordinating conflicts between the res judicata effect of the judgment subject to a retrial and that of res judicata effect of the advanced final and conclusive judgment prior to the judgment subject to a retrial. The provision refers to the case where the res judicata effect of the advanced final and conclusive judgment prior to the judgment subject to a retrial affects the relation between the party in the judgment and the subject matter of a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da369, Jan. 31, 2008, etc.). In such a case, the Defendant’s internal payment is against the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8323, 2005Da8323, 2005Da833030, Aug. 33, 2005.