기타(금전)
1. All of the lawsuits and applications for quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed.
2. Costs of the lawsuit for retrial and quasi-adjudication.
1. Determination on an application for quasi-examination
A. In the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2017Na27067, the Plaintiff filed an application for the examination of the parties on May 19, 2017, but the said court rendered an implied rejection of the application. After the declaration of the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff filed an application for an additional judgment on November 23, 2017, but the said court rendered an implied rejection decision on the application, and each of the above decisions also rendered an implied rejection. The grounds for quasi-adjudication under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act exist
B. Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In the event that a ruling or order, which is entitled to appeal against the protocol or order under Article 220, has become final and conclusive, a retrial may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 451 through 460 of the final and conclusive judgment if there exist grounds under Article 451(1).” In this context, limiting the subject matter of quasi-adjudication to “a ruling or order, which is entitled to appeal” is merely a representative case, and in addition, in case where it constitutes an independent final and conclusive ruling or order, regardless of the final and conclusive judgment or final and conclusive judgment, an application for quasi-adjudication may be filed independently.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma660, Sept. 13, 2004). However, the ruling of evidence on the party’s request for examination does not constitute a ruling or order that is rendered independently regardless of the nature of a final judgment, or an order or final judgment, and thus, becomes final and conclusive independently pursuant to the legal provisions (see, e.g., Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Act).
In addition, it cannot be deemed that the court’s dismissal decision was made on the petition for further judgment on the omission of judgment under Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Act alleged by the
Therefore, the plaintiff.