손해배상
1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part concerning the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is relevant.
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:
Plaintiff
In addition, on June 24, 2009, the designated parties filed a claim for damages against the defendant by the Incheon District Court 2008Gahap17782, and sentenced the above court to dismiss the claim of the plaintiff and the designated parties.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the designated parties appealed to this Court No. 2009Na65838, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed the appeal on August 12, 2010.
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the designated parties appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2010Da72380, but on November 25, 2010, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the final judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. In the judgment subject to a retrial, the determination was based on the fact-finding that was forged or altered, and there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.
B. Since it became final and conclusive to evaluate mobile guides as transportation cost at the upper and lower level, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.
C. The judgment subject to a retrial, even though the Defendant, without notifying the Plaintiff or the Selection B of an illegal administrative vicarious execution without reporting it to the Plaintiff or the Selection B, omitted the judgment on it, and the Defendant deprived the tenants of their rights without taking any measure against them, and even though there was no interested party on the Plaintiff’s obstacle to the Plaintiff located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the judgment subject to a retrial was omitted. The judgment subject to a retrial was an important error in its determination that the judgment was assessed as acquisition cost per 15,00 won per opening against the mobile scrap agent located in C, and the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment subject to a retrial even though the Defendant made the removal of the removal as the removal of the construction business operator’s relic, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial was omitted.