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 following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:
On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) confirmed that dismissal of the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2011 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”) was null and void; and (b) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, such as seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal of the Defendant at the rate of KRW 22,264,068 from July 15, 201 to the date the Plaintiff is reinstated; (c) on November 21, 201, the Plaintiff was dismissed by the court of first instance on November 21, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “the first instance judgment of this case”) B.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed on December 12, 2012 by the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju), 2012 or 3198, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing an appeal by the appellate court on August 27, 2013. The Plaintiff appealed on September 11, 2013 by the presiding judge of the appellate court on September 27, 2013, on the ground that the rejection order of the petition for final appeal was issued on September 27, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as “the second instance judgment of this case”)
C. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial with the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2017 Jaena55 regarding the judgment of the second instance on December 28, 2017. The Plaintiff asserted that “The second instance judgment of this case constitutes grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act because it does not constitute legitimate grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the said Civil Procedure Act,” on October 13, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da31628, Jun. 27, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3061, Oct. 15, 2017; Supreme Court Decision 201Da42324, Oct. 27, 2011.” However, the second instance judgment of this case asserted that “when there is no ground for retrial falling under the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the said Civil Procedure Act.”