In a case where the court has repeated a request for retrial with the same content as that of a case where it is obvious that the request for retrial cannot be accepted by law, even though it was dismissed or finalized on several occasions for the same reason, whether the lawsuit is abuse of right of action (affirmative

Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Jae-sik, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Maliology

Twin Construction Co., Ltd.

Supreme Court Decision 99Da265 delivered on September 29, 1998

The litigation for retrial shall be dismissed. The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

Inasmuch as it is obvious that a request for retrial cannot be accepted by law for the same reason even though it was dismissed and finalized several times through the court, re-requesting the same contents of the request for retrial will result in bullying against the other party, and further, unnecessary consumption of judicial personnel is possible, such a suit shall not be allowed as it abuse the power, barring any special circumstance.

According to the records, the plaintiff (the plaintiff) filed a request for retrial over several occasions on the same ground, which was rejected or rejected by the Supreme Court on the same ground, and again filed a lawsuit in this case on the grounds that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) should have the right to file a lawsuit in this case, and there is no special circumstance that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) should have the right to file a lawsuit in this case. Thus, the lawsuit in this case cannot be allowed because it constitutes an abuse of the right to file a lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the retrial suit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)