증서진부확인
1. Of the litigation for retrial of this case, the part on the grounds of omission of judgment as to the litigation requirements shall be dismissed.
2...
1. According to the records of the judgment subject to a retrial, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on May 12, 2015 as to confirmation of the authenticity of the deed regarding the power of attorney in this case against the Defendant was rendered on the ground that the lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed against the Defendant is unlawful, and ② the judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance on October 6, 2015 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) was justifiable from the appellate case (this Court No. 2015Na98, the appellant, and the Plaintiff), ③ the final appeal of this case (Supreme Court No. 2015Da66212, the Plaintiff-Appellant) was dismissed on February 18, 2016, and the said judgment becomes final and conclusive by serving the Plaintiff on February 23, 2016.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, which maintained the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter “reason”) even though the power of attorney in this case was forged, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
① In light of the purport of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the nature of a trial without hearing, it is reasonable to view that the court of final appeal has dismissed the final appeal as a justifiable ground for retrial, regardless of whether an omission in judgment was alleged as the grounds for final appeal in the final appeal, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da4205, Jun. 29, 2007). In light of the purport of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the said Civil Procedure Act, which provides a supplementary nature of retrial, and the nature of a trial without hearing, it is reasonable to view that the same applies
(Supreme Court Decision 2008Da7970 Decided May 29, 2008). However, the Plaintiff is the Supreme Court regarding the judgment subject to a retrial.