손해배상(기)
1. All of the appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of the review are assessed against the plaintiff (the plaintiff).
1. The following facts are apparent in light of records:
In other words, on March 7, 2008, the plaintiffs et al. filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the amount corresponding to the damages column in the attached inheritance relationship and the damages table.
On May 28, 2009, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim.
(Re-deliberation Decision). The decision subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time because the plaintiffs et al. appealed and do not know about it.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s motion on the ground that the Defendant’s defense for the completion of extinctive prescription does not violate the principle of good faith as to the so-called “Sean Police
However, the ruling of similar cases rendered after the decision for review became final and conclusive was determined to have violated the principle of good faith.
In addition, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da33469 Decided the expiration of extinctive prescription among the reasons for the judgment, which is the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial, was changed by the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819.
Therefore, in the judgment subject to a retrial, there are grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision, 201Da45148, Apr. 8, 201).
B. The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act may be the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment was omitted on an important matter that may affect a judgment), and there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the same Act (hereinafter “grounds for retrial
The reason why the decision subject to a retrial did not make a decision on special circumstances that enable the defendant to regard the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription as contrary to the principle of good faith.