채무부존재확인
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).
1. The following facts are apparent in the records: (a) the judgment subject to a retrial is finalized.
On February 22, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), who was the Defendant’s husband, seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation, with Busan District Court 2010Gahap3257 (the principal lawsuit). On August 23, 2011, the Deceased filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff, claiming damages for medical malpractice on the ground of the above court 201Gahap17703 (Counterclaim) (the above court). On June 20, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the counterclaim.
B. Accordingly, the Deceased appealed from Busan High Court Decision 2012Na5766 (Main Office), 2012Na5773 (Counterclaim), and died during the process of the said lawsuit, and the Defendant and the Deceased’s children, who were the deceased’s successors, took over the said lawsuit. On February 21, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of a counterclaim (the dismissal of the part added and expanded the claim of a counterclaim at the time of dismissal of the appeal). Accordingly, the Defendant and the Deceased’s children appealed from the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da23792 (Main Office) and 2013Da23808 (Counterclaim), but the said judgment became final and conclusive as the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on June 13, 2013.
2. The Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s new trial made a false statement in the party’s personal questioning, and such a false statement was adopted as evidence of the judgment subject to new trial.
In addition, the judgment subject to a retrial, even though there were medical malpractices that could not be aware that cerebrovascular was already under way by neglecting blood pressure measurement to the re-appellant, was omitted, and the judgment on the fact that the re-appellant stated that all of the medical expenses would be borne by the re-appellant was omitted.
Therefore, since there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, it is revoked and sought a judgment like the purport of the request for retrial.
3. Determination
A. As there is a civil dispute as to the grounds for a retrial, a judgment is rendered via litigation procedures.