logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.29.선고 2015재다1657 판결
손해배상(기)
Cases

2015Reda 1657 Compensation (as defined)

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

1. A;

2. B

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

Korea

Judgment Subject to Judgment

Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73957 Decided September 10, 2015

Imposition of Judgment

December 29, 2016

Text

All requests for retrial are dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Plaintiffs for retrial).

Reasons

The grounds for request for retrial are examined.

1. In order to file a lawsuit for a retrial against a judgment of the court of final appeal, the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act are required in the litigation proceedings or the judgment of the court of final appeal. The court of final appeal does not hold the position of fact-finding unless the matters to be examined ex officio are not matters. However, the judgment of evidence and the legitimacy of fact-finding by the court of the second instance which is the fact-finding court is merely the judgment of the court of final appeal, and the facts duly confirmed by the fact-finding court are binding on the court of final appeal. Accordingly, the grounds for fact-finding itself, like the witness, appraiser, interpreter, or party’s questioning under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, cannot be considered as grounds for retrial against the judgment of the court of final appeal, unless it concerns the matters to be examined ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da1353, Feb. 12, 201

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion in this case appears to the purport that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 6 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment of retrial. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above assertion is not related to the fact-finding as to the matters to be examined ex officio by the court of final appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jong-il

arrow