손해배상(기)
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The fact that the first instance court of Ulsan District Court 2009Kadan21712 rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 16, 2009 in the case subject to a retrial against the Defendant, which became final and conclusive as of July 21, 2010, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 1, 2010, which became final and conclusive as of July 21, 2010, and the fact that the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was dismissed on August 18, 201 is significant in this court.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for a retrial is that the Plaintiff was subject to criminal punishment due to the Defendant’s perjury, and the Plaintiff and his family members suffered emotional distress. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay 22.5 million won and delay damages to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages.
Although the judgment of the court of first instance is to be determined differently and dismissed the plaintiff's claim, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and the judgment subject to retrial dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial, which constitutes grounds for retrial as stipulated in Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.
3. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment on the existence or absence of a ground for retrial refers to cases where a judgment is not clearly indicated among the reasons for the judgment concerning the method of attack and defense that a party submitted in a lawsuit and has an impact on the judgment, as the method of attack and defense that the party submitted in the lawsuit. Once a judgment was rendered, the determination
or the reasons leading to the judgment was not sufficiently explained.
or the grounds for rejecting the claims of the parties are not individually explained.
Even if this cannot be said to be an omission of judgment as referred to in the above law.
Supreme Court Decision 191.10