자동차인도
1. All applications for retrial and quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the retrial shall be the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant.
1. The following facts in the process of the lawsuit are apparent in the records. A.
On February 9, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, including the delivery of a motor vehicle, as the head office of Suwon District Court Branch 2006Gahap6122 (main office), and the Defendant filed a claim for usage fee under the above court 2006Gahap6139 (Counterclaim). On February 9, 2007, the Plaintiff’s claim for counterclaim was partially accepted, and the Defendant’s claim for counterclaim was handed down (the first instance judgment and the judgment subject to a retrial).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na34311 (the main office), 2007Na34328 (Counterclaim), but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal was rendered on January 15, 2008 (the second judgment subject to a retrial).
In other words, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on June 26, 2008, as Supreme Court Decision 2008Da20799, 2008Da20805 (Counterclaim).
B. The Plaintiff filed a suit for a retrial of the judgment subject to a retrial of the Seoul District Court 2008 Janam Branched 10, and the suit was transferred to the Seoul High Court 2008 Jadona474 on the ground of the lack of jurisdiction.
On May 24, 2010 and March 29, 2012, and July 23, 2012, the presiding judge of the instant case issued an order to order the Plaintiff to pay stamp and service fees, but the order was not complied with. On August 20, 2012, the presiding judge issued an order to dismiss the presiding judge of the retrial (the order subject to quasi-examination).
Therefore, the Plaintiff re-appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Ma1491, but on November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff’s re-appeal was dismissed.
C. On June 27, 2013, the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2012Na1290) filed an application for quasi-deliberation with respect to the order subject to quasi-deliberation, and on June 27, 2013, the judgment that “the instant lawsuit is dismissed” was pronounced (Article 4).
Therefore, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da59173, but the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on November 28, 2013.
2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment subject to a retrial is lawful
A. The plaintiff's attorney at the first instance court's ground for retrial asserted by the plaintiff is "non-party."