beta
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 to this court or are apparent in records:
On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the refund of the Internet user fee of 80,470 won, which the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff, from the Daegu District Court Decision 2017Gaso738, the Gyeong-si District Court (Seoul District Court 2017Gaso738). The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the refund of the Internet user fee of 576,326, and damages for delay paid to the Plaintiff. The said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 20,
B. In filing an appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff changed the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff into seeking payment of KRW 576,426 and delay damages therefor. On June 20, 2018, the appellate court dismissed the part regarding KRW 100,660, which corresponds to the part concerning the Plaintiff’s demand procedure cost claim during the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and rendered a judgment changing the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) with the purport to dismiss the remainder of the claim. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not file an appeal within the period of appeal.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s argument on the grounds for retrial is that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, by omitting judgment on the Plaintiff’s argument that “the Defendant provided welfare benefits to the Plaintiff according to the result of a civil petition reply by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety submitted by the Plaintiff,” and that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, since evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 submitted by the Defendant was forged and altered, there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and ③ there was an error of misapprehending the fact
3. Determination on the existence of a ground for retrial
A. First, the Civil Procedure Act.