(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.05 2014재가단181

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.05 2014재가단181

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s action for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages as Seoul Central District Court 2010Kadan43419, the above court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on July 26, 2011 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 23, 2013.

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s argument that the judgment subject to a retrial was omitted or mistakenly determined as stated in the written reply against the order to prepare for the statement of reasons for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for retrial for which a final and conclusive judgment was rendered to have omitted a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment shall be instituted within 30 days from the date on which the party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the final and conclusive judgment (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). With respect to the instant case, health class and the instant lawsuit for retrial was instituted on September 12, 2014. According to the records, the Plaintiff could be recognized as having known the existence of the grounds for retrial on August 8, 2011, by being aware of whether the original judgment was omitted. Even if the Plaintiff was aware of the omission of the judgment on the original judgment, even though he had known of the omission of the judgment on the original judgment, the Plaintiff was aware of the omission of the judgment on the original judgment on the judgment subject to retrial, thereby recognizing the existence of the grounds for retrial at least when the Plaintiff voluntarily instituted the damages claim (this case’s claim (Article 2014Ga421586, which was presented).

If so, the litigation of this case was filed after the period of the retrial.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호

-민사소송법 제456조 제1항

유사 판례

-대법원 2016.04.12 2016재다33

-대법원 1990. 4. 27. 선고 90재누27 판결

-대법원 2016.12.01 2015재두559

-대법원 2015.02.12 2014재두521

-서울행정법원 2017.09.21 2017재구합88