손해배상(기)
1. All of the lawsuits and applications for quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. The following facts shall be apparent or clearly recorded in this court with respect to a decision subject to review and the final and conclusive judgment:
The plaintiff asserted that "the defendants shall spread false information that the plaintiff is not the resident of the plaintiff but the illegal resident, thereby impairing the plaintiff's reputation, and further, the plaintiff filed an application for a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties, etc. against the representative of the Dong and the audit and inspection, and thus the defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay 4 million won to the plaintiff as compensation for damages." The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation against the defendants as the head of Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch 2013Da207357, Feb. 6, 2014. The court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff.
B. As to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendants appealed to this Court No. 2014Na11007, and the Plaintiff extended the purport of the claim to seek payment of KRW 16,236,700 to the Defendants jointly and severally during the said appellate trial. On December 24, 2014, the court accepted the Defendants’ appeal on the grounds that there is no benefit of lawsuit and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ act of defamation. The part of the claim for litigation costs, including the claim extended in the trial, was dismissed, and the judgment was rendered to change the remainder of the claim to be dismissed (hereinafter “the first retrial judgment”).
On December 26, 2014, the plaintiff did not appeal even after receiving the original copy of the judgment on the first review on December 26, 2014, which became final and conclusive as is.
C. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial on the ground that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial (this Court Decision 2015Na26). However, the above court’s application for quasi-deliberation on May 22, 2015 is inappropriate as filing a lawsuit against a decision that is not subject to quasi-examination, and it cannot be deemed that there was an omission of judgment in the judgment subject to quasi-examination.