2010Rena 93 Compensation for Damages

A

Korea

Ulsan District Court Decision 2009 Ghana34798 Decided August 25, 2009

Ulsan District Court Decision 2009Na4701 Decided February 11, 2010

December 9, 2010

December 23, 2010

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

The judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall pay to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") 3,00,000 won and 867,000 won among them, 2,13,000 won shall be paid 20% per annum from July 28, 1987 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination of the original judgment

The following facts are clear in records:

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant, which stated that “In spite of the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 867,00 to B, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the Plaintiff’s loan, so the Defendant is liable to compensate for the total amount of property damage and consolation money that the Plaintiff sustained, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 25, 2009.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed again as 2009Na4701, but the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on February 11, 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Grounds for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff

Although the adjudication division dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for return of loan against B had committed an illegal act, it asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant.

3. Determination

A lawsuit for retrial on a final and conclusive judgment shall be permitted only when there exist the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, where the ground for the plaintiff's assertion does not constitute it, the lawsuit

On the other hand, "when the judgment has been omitted on important matters affecting the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the method of attack and defense which a party submitted in a lawsuit and has an influence on the judgment, and where the judgment has not been clearly stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and the grounds alleged by the plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jacking the presiding judge

Judge Cho Jong-ok

Judges Mahova-Gyeong