beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D as Changwon District Court 2008Gahap6137, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a dismissal judgment on July 22, 2010, and the Plaintiff appealed and is still pending in the trial as Busan High Court 2010Na2575 as of the date of appeal.
B. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Changwon District Court 2008Gadan44392, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the dismissal judgment on July 24, 2009, and the Plaintiff appealed as the Changwon District Court 2009Na10731 and was sentenced to the revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered, and E, etc. appealed with the Supreme Court 201Da4916. On July 14, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the above judgment of the appellate court on July 14, 201, and is currently pending in the trial as the Changwon District Court 201Na7967.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Changwon District Court 201Gahap2180, the Changwon District Court 201Gahap2180, but was sentenced to the dismissal judgment on October 13, 201, and the appeal by the Plaintiff is pending at the Busan High Court 201Na557 as of October 13, 201.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant B to the effect that “Defendant B assaulted the Plaintiff’s face with beer and interfered with the Plaintiff’s affairs of operating a certified judicial scrivener office.” However, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on April 27, 2011.
E. Defendant B filed a complaint with the Plaintiff on the purport that “the Plaintiff forged the confirmation document in the name of the Defendant B and submitted it to the Changwon District Court in relation to the lawsuit, including loans, etc. to the Changwon District Court 2008Gahap6137, etc., and the Plaintiff was indicted as the facts charged. The Changwon District Court (No. 2010DaMa6555) acquitted the Plaintiff on the ground that it constitutes a case where there was no proof of crime on August 31, 2010. However, the Prosecutor dissatisfied therewith appealed.