logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.07.21 2018재나133
증서진부 확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court.

The plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") filed a lawsuit against the defendant (the defendant for review; hereinafter "the defendant") to confirm the authenticity of "the annexed list" in the attached Form No. 2017Kadan881 against the defendant (the defendant for review; hereinafter "the defendant").

B. On November 7, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing a lawsuit on the grounds that the document stating the name, address, and contact information of several persons including the Defendant is merely a document stating the name, address, and contact information of the Defendant, and thus, it does not directly prove the existence of certain legal relations from the content thereof, and thus, it cannot be the object of a lawsuit confirming the authenticity of the document.

C. On May 15, 2018, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) against the judgment of the first instance, and appealed by this Court No. 2018Na1773.

Therefore, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da28174, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 13, 2018 pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal of Supreme Court, and the judgment on September 14, 2018 became final and conclusive.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. In the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when documents and other items as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered).

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act were forged, and thus, there exists a ground under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to retrial.

Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when documents and other articles used as evidence for judgment have been forged or altered,” a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when documents and other articles used as evidence for judgment have been forged or altered.”

arrow