임대차보증금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, and.
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.
On December 21, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit of lease claim against the Plaintiff and B by the Jeonju District Court 201Gadan24823, and received the same judgment from the same court as that of the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to review”).
B. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff and B did not appeal to the judgment subject to a retrial within the period of appeal.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of a retrial suit
A. The Plaintiff, who is his spouse, forged a letter of payment by B, was unable to serve as a joint and several surety. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive based on this, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint by B around December 30, 2014, and B filed a complaint by the previous District Court on March 30, 2015, which received a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 (former District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 950), and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial constituted grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date the relevant party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment becomes final and conclusive.”
Even according to the assertion of the plaintiff in retrial, the plaintiff in retrial filed a complaint with the previous District Prosecutors' Office on the ground of forgery of a letter of rejection of payment on or around December 2014, and the fact that the above summary order against B was finalized on May 7, 2015 is significant in this court. The plaintiff in retrial was aware of the grounds for retrial at least on or around May 7, 2015, and thus, the plaintiff in retrial should have filed a suit for retrial within 30 days thereafter.
However, the instant lawsuit filed on April 25, 2018, which was obviously 30 days from May 7, 2015, and thus unlawful.
3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected, and thus, the Civil Procedure Act is applicable.