Cases constituting grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act

When a claimant is unable to serve a petition for divorce by intentionally indicating his/her last address as his/her domicile while having knowledge of the respondent's domicile at any time between the claimant and the respondent, if he/she obtained a favorable judgment by public notice upon request of the claimant, and such judgment becomes final and conclusive, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da445 delivered on June 13, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 444 delivered on June 13, 1967, Article 422(56)1019 delivered on June 17, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 8148 delivered on June 8, 196, Supreme Court Decision 73Da1471 delivered on June 25, 197, Article 422(65) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 422(94)1024 delivered on June 24, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 495Da7957 delivered on June 25, 197)

Claimant

appellees

Daegu District Court of the first instance (75 2)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by an appellant.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

An appellant (responding to a retrial, an appellee, and an appellee) and the appellee (responding to a retrial, an appellee, and an appellee) shall be divorced.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent in the first and second instances.

Daegu District Court Decision 75D10 Decided May 22, 1975 shall be revoked.

The claimant's claim is dismissed.

Trial costs due to the main trial and retrial shall be borne by the claimant.

1. Existence of grounds for retrial

In the case of divorce on January 8, 1975, the appellant filed a written appeal with the last address of the respondent in Daegu-gu, Nam-dong (hereinafter omitted) in the city of Daegu-gu, where the claimant's domicile is the applicant, and as a result, the appeal procedure by public notice was conducted upon the applicant's application, and the appeal procedure was rendered on May 22, 199, and the final judgment on June 7, 197 is significant on the record.

Since the respondent alleged that his address was false and thus, he constitutes a case of request for adjudication. As such, Gap's No. 5 (Certificate of Retirement), Eul's No. 7 (No. 1), and evidence No. 3 (No. 4) and each of the above facts stated No. 4 (No. 7) were known to the defendant's address, and the defendant's address was found to have been separated from 97 (No. 9) and then his address was found to have been separated from 17 days before the court below's request for adjudication, and the defendant's remaining to have been removed from 17 days after the fact that the defendant's address was removed from 97 days after the fact that the defendant's address was removed from 17 days after the fact that the defendant's address was removed from 17 days after the fact that the defendant's address was removed from 17 days after the defendant's request for adjudication, and that the defendant's remaining to have been separated from 16 days after the defendant's address was removed from 16 days after the defendant's address.

In addition, the fact that the request for a retrial of this case was filed on October 10, 1975, within the peremptory period of 30 days from the date on which he became aware of the fact of the above divorce case, is obvious by the recipient of the original court attached to the request for a retrial of this case, so the request for a retrial of this case

2. Judgment on the merits

The claimant, as the cause of the claim, abused the defendant's right to care for the cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage fage.

If so, the claimant's claim for objection is without merit, and thus, the original judgment that forms the conclusion is just, and the appellant's appeal is without merit, so it is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the losing party as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)