logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.11.30 2016재나170
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. Although the Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages by the Ulsan District Court 2015Gaso2001, was sentenced to the dismissal judgment on November 10, 2015, and appealed by the Ulsan District Court 2015Na23246, but was sentenced to the dismissal judgment on May 26, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to a retrial”). The fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 14, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal despite being served with the certified copy of the said judgment on the appellate court, is obvious or obvious to this court.

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

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the grounds for a retrial with the Busan District Court Decision 91Na9575, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a dismissal ruling on December 19, 1991. The Plaintiff appealed as the Busan District Court Decision 91Na9531, but was sentenced to dismissal of the appeal.

(2) The court below's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for a loan to B without properly grasping the facts in the previous loan case, which affected the plaintiff's failure to receive a total of KRW 1,125,800 from B, and there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment to be decided otherwise.

B. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when a judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect a judgment,” the grounds for retrial are stipulated as grounds for retrial. However, once a judgment was made, the circumstance that the judgment was erroneous does not constitute grounds for retrial.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Ja31, Dec. 22, 1995). Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act argues or knows the grounds for retrial by appeal.

arrow