beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. According to Articles 451(3) and 451(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 451(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, as to whether a final and conclusive judgment is in violation of Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the retrial on the final and conclusive judgment shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which rendered the judgment to institute a new trial, and when the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, it is not possible to institute a lawsuit against the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, a lawsuit filed in the court of first instance against the judgment of the first instance
According to the evidence No. 29-1 and evidence No. 29-2, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the defendants by Seoul High Court 2015Nu1290, and the plaintiff filed an appeal by Seoul High Court 2015Nu1290, and rendered a judgment on the merits of the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal on November 13, 2015 at the appellate court. Thus, the plaintiff can bring an action for retrial only against the judgment No. 2015Nu1290, Nov. 13, 2015, which is the appellate court's judgment.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed with the court for retrial on May 7, 2015, Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2508 Decided May 7, 2015 is unlawful.
(2) In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff specified the above 2012Guhap2508 judgment as an indication of the judgment subject to a retrial by the chief of a retrial office; and (b) specified the above 2012Guhap2508 judgment as the judgment subject to a retrial; and (c) only specified the grounds for the above 2012Guhap2508 judgment as the grounds for a retrial, the Plaintiff’s judgment is deemed as the object of a retrial and cannot be transferred to the appellate court).
The Plaintiff’s assertion that there exists grounds for retrial and determination 1 is implemented by the Defendants.