beta
Text
1. All of the lawsuits and applications for quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed.
2. Costs of the lawsuit for retrial and quasi-adjudication.
Reasons
1. Determination on a request for retrial
A. The court that rendered the Plaintiff’s claim for the judgment subject to a retrial is implicitly dismissed and rendered a judgment, without omitting the judgment on the Plaintiff’s request for examination of witness on November 10, 2017. As such, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act by omitting the judgment on the application for examination
B. Determination 1) The proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for a retrial may not be instituted when a party asserts or does not know the grounds for a retrial by an appeal. Here, “when the party does not know the existence of the grounds for a retrial,” the proviso should be interpreted to include not only the case where an appeal was filed despite having been aware of the existence of the grounds for a retrial, but also the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive because he did not file an appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991). The grounds such as omission of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act are deemed to have known at the time of receiving the original copy of the judgment, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 191; 92Da39328, Sept. 28, 1993).
Therefore, the ground for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial because it falls under the grounds for appeal, even if it is known to that effect, and thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.
2. Determination as to the quasi-examination application
A. In the Seoul Central District Court case 2017Na50616, the Plaintiff applied for the examination of witness on November 10, 2017, but the said court rendered an implied dismissal decision on this issue. The said decision is governed by Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.