logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.18 2019재나71
손해배상
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan15001, and the said court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 13, 2017.

B. On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2018Na9585, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da295059, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on March 14, 2019, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Whether the lawsuit for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Although a share transfer contract on C (the changed company D; hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) shares 1,000 shares owned by the Plaintiff was null and void, the judgment subject to a retrial was recognized to have refused to return the instant shares from the Defendant by using the Defendant’s false statement as evidence. Since the Defendant did not make a judgment on the lower court, even if the Defendant committed a tort in the course of selling and clearing the instant shares using the instant shares and reduced the value of the Plaintiff’s shares, the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party’s examination) and subparagraph 9 (when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment) of Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) In order to claim the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the elements under Article 451(2) other than such grounds for retrial (which is subject to punishment).

arrow