(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.02.06 2017재나405

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.02.06 2017재나405

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. According to the records on the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages amounting to KRW 2,040,000 with the Ulsan District Court 2015Gau4903, and the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 10, 2015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal under 2015Na21653, but this Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the ruling on review”).

Therefore, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da276986, but was dismissed on March 30, 2017, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on April 3, 2017.

2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff did not forge the letter of cash in the name B, but was sentenced to a fine of one million won by an unfair judgment. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant's illegal act.

Since the judgment subject to a retrial did not properly determine the Plaintiff’s assertion by misunderstanding the facts, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. In light of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal for which the judgment of the court of final appeal was rendered on the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court of final appeal was omitted, it can be known if the original judgment was served on the original judgment and read the grounds of the judgment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, it could be asserted as the grounds of final appeal since the omission of judgment could be known when the original judgment was served on the original judgment, and it could not be asserted as the grounds of final appeal unless there is any special circumstance. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of final appeal

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 201 June 2007

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.11.28 2018재나310

-청주지방법원 2018.02.09 2017재나10021

-울산지방법원 2019.11.28 2018재나82

-서울고등법원 2008. 10. 28. 선고 2008재누120 판결

-울산지방법원 2019.08.22 2017재나719