Whether it constitutes a ground for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act

The original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served by the Plaintiff’s legal representative, and the said judgment became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not file an appeal against it. Thus, even if there was an omission in the judgment subject to a retrial, a request for retrial under the proviso of Article 4

Article 45-2 (Presumption of Donation of Title Trust Property)

Seoul Administrative Court 2016Recogn29

HaH

S Director of the Tax Office

oly 2016.106

oly 27, 2016

1. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff submitted sufficient data to prove the title trust of Nonparty AA, the Plaintiff

However, the judgment subject to a retrial is based upon the above materials or the defendant's representation of the plaintiff to the title truster.

As such, the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act are omitted.

applicable.

B. Relevant statutes

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

When an original copy of a judgment is served on an attorney, such attorney shall, except in extenuating circumstances:

It seems that the judgment was known whether the judgment was omitted when the original copy of the judgment was served.

(1) In the event that the court has become aware of the omission of the judgment

Unless there are special circumstances, the parties to the lawsuit should be deemed to have become aware of the fact.

In addition, according to the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a party’s review by appeal.

No action for retrial may be brought unless the grounds have been alleged or have been known to the public.

(1) The term "when it is known that the term "if it is not claimed," or "if it is not claimed".

the judgment became final and conclusive as it is because the court did not appeal even if it was known that there was a ground for retrial.

It should also be interpreted that the case includes the case (Supreme Court Decision 91Da358 delivered on November 12, 1991).

29057 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision)

2) In the instant case:

B. On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff’s legal representative in the judgment subject to a retrial served the original copy of the judgment on December 7, 2015.

In fact, the plaintiff did not appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment above was rendered.

The facts that became final and conclusive are apparent in records, and even if so, as alleged by the Plaintiff in the judgment subject to review.

Even if there was an omission in judgment, the plaintiff was served with the original copy of the judgment by his/her attorney on December 2, 2015.

7. The judgment subject to a retrial was already known, and even if there was no appeal, it became a judgment subject to a retrial.

Since it has become final and conclusive, the above reasons pursuant to the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

It is said that it is impossible to bring an action for retrial.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is ordered to dismiss it.

The decision shall be rendered as above.