logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.11.29 2017재나689
부당이득금
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The Defendant asserts that the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes “when the judgment was omitted with respect to important matters that may affect the judgment,” as prescribed by Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Before determining whether there was any ground for retrial as alleged by the Defendant in the judgment subject to retrial, the instant lawsuit for retrial was instituted within the period for filing a retrial, and whether it is legitimate after the party’s judgment became final and conclusive, and then the said period constitutes a peremptory term (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, the party becomes aware of the existence of the ground for retrial by becoming aware of whether the judgment was omitted at the time when the original copy of the judgment was served (Article 456(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, where a judgment becomes final and conclusive thereafter, the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial on the ground for evading the said judgment should be calculated from

(2) The court below’s decision to dismiss the Defendant’s final appeal on September 11, 2008 and rendered a final judgment on September 11, 2008 is clear in the records. The court below’s decision to dismiss the Defendant’s final appeal on June 11, 2008 and thereby became final and conclusive at that time.

Therefore, insofar as the Defendant, at the time of receiving the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial, did not have any assertion or evidence on the special circumstances that he/she did not know of the grounds for retrial, the instant lawsuit filed on September 20, 2017, which was filed on September 20, 2017 after the 30th day of the date on which

In addition, the main purport of the defendant's assertion is that the judgment of the original judgment was erroneous, and this cannot be seen as a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

arrow