증서진부확인
1. The part of a request for retrial due to omission of judgment as to the requirements for litigation among the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.
2...
1. According to the records of the judgment subject to a retrial, the plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") filed a lawsuit against the defendant (the defendant for a retrial; hereinafter "the defendant") to confirm the authenticity of the deed regarding the loan certificate in this case under the jurisdiction of the Chuncheon District Court, 2014Kadan3575, Nov. 28, 2014; and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit on Nov. 28, 2014; ② the plaintiff appealed (this court 2015Na73), and the appellate court rendered a final judgment on July 7, 2015 on the ground that "the first instance judgment was declared without notice of the sentencing date, and the procedure violates the law, and thus the said judgment should be revoked, but the lawsuit to confirm the authenticity of the deed in this case has no interest in confirmation, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance revoked the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the judgment dismissing the lawsuit for the confirmation of the authenticity of the deed in this case (hereinafter "the judgment subject to a retrial").
2. The plaintiff asserts that ① the lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed of this case is lawful due to the benefit of confirmation (hereinafter referred to as “reasons”), ② the loan certificate of this case is forged (hereinafter referred to as “reason B”), the judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed the lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed of this case, constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The grounds for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, as to the omission of judgment on the grounds (e.g., omission of judgment on the requirements for a lawsuit), may be a legitimate ground for a retrial against the judgment of the court below, regardless of whether an omission in judgment was alleged as the grounds