logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2011. 07. 28. 선고 2011재두94 판결
수회에 걸쳐 동일사유로 재심청구하는 것은 소권을 남용한 것으로 각하함[각하]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du59 ( October 10, 2010)

Title

In case of a request for re-determination for the same cause several times, it shall be dismissed as an abuse of the right of action.

Summary

Unless there are any special circumstances, filing a new petition for a retrial with the same content, on the ground that it is obvious that it is impossible to accept it by law, even though the court has dismissed the petition for retrial on several occasions due to the same reason, is an abuse of the right and thus dismissed as it is not acceptable

Cases

2011Revocation of revocation of imposition of transfer income tax

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

1. Park A2. Sheb

Defendant (Re-Defendant)

○ Head of tax office

Judgment Subject to Judgment

Supreme Court Decision 2010Du59 Decided June 10, 2010

Imposition of Judgment

July 28, 2011

Text

All lawsuits for retrial shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

Notwithstanding the fact that a court has rejected a request for retrial on several occasions due to the same reason, filing a new request for retrial with the same content cannot be accepted by law for an obvious reason, barring any special circumstance, may not be allowed as it abuse the right of action.

In this case, although the plaintiff (the plaintiff) had been dismissed or dismissed by the Supreme Court on the same ground several occasions, it can be seen that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case again on the record that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit of this case, and there is no special circumstance that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) should file a lawsuit of this case and be protected by the right.

Therefore, all of the lawsuits in this case 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.

arrow