beta
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. The Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming that the fence of the building constructed on the land adjacent to the instant land owned by the Plaintiff infringed on the part as indicated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the claim of the instant land, and sought the removal and delivery of the contaminated land. On April 2, 2014, the said court rendered a final and conclusive judgment dismissing the lawsuit on the ground that “the said lawsuit constitutes an abuse of the right of action and is deemed unlawful.” However, on October 21, 2014, the said judgment was handed down (the instant judgment subject to a retrial) with the same purport as the Changwon District Court Decision 2014Na4822, and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014 and became final and conclusive on November 18, 2014.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was clearly unfolded by the Defendant’s new wall that was rejected by the lower court without conducting on-site inspection, etc. in the judgment subject to a retrial. As a judge who was involved in a trial abused ex officio authority or destroyed evidence and omitted the purport of appeal, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4, 6, 7, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “Act”) in the judgment subject to a retrial.
B. 1) Article 451(1)4, 6, and 7 of the Act provides that “In the case of Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Act, a retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence” (Article 451(1)4, 6, and 7 of the Act), and Article 451(2) of the Act provides that “In order to claim grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4, 6, and 7 of the Act, there are grounds for