보증채무금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. According to the records of the final judgment subject to a retrial, the court below rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit claiming the guaranteed debt against the Defendant on March 24, 2015 as the first branch court of Chuncheon District Court Decision 2013Na1954, ② the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on October 6, 2015 in the appellate case (this court 2015Na776, the Defendant who is the appellant) and ③ the final appeal was dismissed on February 25, 2016 (the Supreme Court 2015Da68256, the Defendant-Appellant), and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive by serving the Defendant on March 2, 2016.
2. The defendant asserts that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes a ground for retrial.
In light of the purport of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the nature of a trial for non-trial procedure, barring any special circumstance, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial against the judgment of the court of final appeal, regardless of whether an omission of judgment in the court of final appeal was alleged as the grounds for final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da4205, Jun. 29, 2007). It is reasonable to deem that the same applies to a case where the court of final appeal dismisses the final appeal
(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial by the Supreme Court regarding the judgment subject to a retrial may not be filed on the grounds that the Defendant omitted judgment in the final appeal as to the judgment subject to a retrial, regardless of whether the Defendant asserted the omission of judgment in the final appeal as the grounds for final appeal, and thus, the Defendant cannot file a lawsuit for retrial based on the grounds that the judgment was omitted in the final appeal as to the judgment subject to a retrial.
3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.