logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.08.28 2019재나50042
기타(금전)
Text

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On March 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming monetary payment against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lawsuit claiming monetary payment”) and was sentenced to the first instance judgment dismissing the claim on September 18, 2018.

(Court 2018 Ghana514636).b.

The Plaintiff appealed against the foregoing judgment, but was sentenced to the judgment dismissing the appeal on June 21, 2019 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to review”) (this Court 2018Na61481), and the said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on July 9, 2019 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal.

2. There are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (when there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority necessary for a legal act by a representative) and Article 451(1)9 (when judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect a judgment) in the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The purport of Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating a lack of authority as a ground for a retrial is to protect a party who originally lacks such authority, and thus, can benefit by asserting such ground for retrial.

(1) The term "interest" means a case in which the previous judgment can be finally changed to the other party's interest even for reasons other than the lack of the above power of representation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da50 delivered on February 8, 1983). The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit without granting the right of representation from the first instance court to the appellate court of the instant claim for monetary payment. This is the case where “when an agent has any defect in granting the authority necessary for conducting the litigation.”

arrow