Park Instigates et al. (Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] One other (Attorney Jeong Jae-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na25869 delivered on December 11, 1990

Daejeon District Court Decision 89Da2281 delivered on May 8, 1990

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Judgment that the original judgment is revoked

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant Jung-ri shall revoke the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant Jung-ri shall execute the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new building of 737-1 to 375 square meters in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Daejeon District Court of Daejeon on December 30, 1985, the registration office of 25167 square meters received on December 30, 1985, the registration office of the establishment of a neighboring establishment of a new building of 737-2 to 331 square meters in the name of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and the above ground ground 81.4 square meters in the registry office of the same day. The defendants shall jointly and severally execute the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new establishment of a new building of 21,34,253 won and the expenses therefor from December 6, 1989 to 25 percent.

The Seoul High Court's 90Na2569 and Daejeon District Court's 89Hun-Ba281 and the records of the above case are as follows. The plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) did not have the above 90 Won's claim against the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for more than 2281 for the cancellation of the registration of creation of mortgage 21,34,253 and damages for delay which were filed in the records. The court of the first instance did not have the above 90 Won's claim against the defendants for more than 15,00 Won's claim against the above 90 Won's claim against the plaintiff's 290 Won's claim against the above 190 Won's claim against the plaintiff's 290 Won's claim against the above 90 Won's claim against the plaintiff's 290 Won's claim against the plaintiff's 194,250 others's claim against the above defendant's claim against the defendant's claim against the above.

As a cause for the instant petition for retrial, the Plaintiffs, despite that the aggregate amount of various claims against the Defendants alleged by the Plaintiffs to offset in the instant case was KRW 44,62,253, the said judgment subject to a retrial was rendered only against KRW 38,940,473, and the remainder of KRW 5,721,780, among which the said judgment subject to a retrial was rendered. Such judgment was reversed, and the grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act are asserted as follows: (a) in addition to the part of the judgment and the amount of claims instigates Plaintiff Park Jong-ok, which was recognized in the judgment subject to a retrial, exceeds the secured obligation by the said judgment that the Plaintiffs seeks cancellation; (b) in the event of a set-off from an equal amount, the said secured obligation by the said mortgage was entirely extinguished and the said secured obligation by the said judgment should be revoked; and (c)

Therefore, the above evidence cited in the judgment for retrial (in particular, the plaintiffs' request for correction of the purport of the judgment and the ground for retrial as of December 4, 1989, the preparatory documents as of April 27, 199, and preparatory documents as of August 20, 190), which were not known by the court of first instance as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and the remaining 36,34,253 won, which were hard to prove, were stated in the court of first instance. According to the above judgment's reasoning that the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's appeal had not been served on the plaintiff's 1 as to the above judgment for retrial, and that the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's appeal was not served on the plaintiff's 2 as the plaintiff's appellate court's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's 1 as to the above judgment, and that the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff's appeal was not served on the plaintiff's 1 as the plaintiff's appellate court's plaintiff's plaintiff's 2's appellate court's allegation that the plaintiff's plaintiff's allegation of this case was paid.

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it shall be dismissed, and the costs of the retrial shall be borne by the plaintiffs who have lost them as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)