beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The final judgment subject to a retrial (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) declared a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 24, 2014 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) by the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kahap102105, asserting that the Defendants should compensate the Plaintiff for damages as they infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright, and that “the Defendant Republic of Korea shall pay KRW 2,000,000 to the Plaintiff, Defendant Dongdong Construction Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Korea Communications Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., respectively, shall pay KRW 4,00,000 to the Plaintiff,” but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 22, 2014 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). The fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 22, 2014 is apparent in records.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. 1) The purport of a claim in a civil lawsuit is to be specified in detail so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified, and whether an objection is specified is an ex officio investigation. Therefore, in cases where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall ex officio order the correction, regardless of the defendant's objection, and shall dismiss the lawsuit if it does not comply with the order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2904, Sept. 8, 1981; 2007Da5069, Oct. 9, 2008); and this court issued an order to correct the plaintiff to clearly and specifically specify the purport of the claim on Aug. 9, 2016; and the plaintiff submitted an amendment on Sept. 2, 2016 to arrange the purport of the claim.
However, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim, although it is unclear whether the Plaintiff means a certain country’s currency since the Plaintiff stated “$” in the column of claim of the U.S. monetary amendment against the Defendant Republic of Korea, it appears that the above “$” appears to refer to the U.S. currency according to the purport of the entire pleadings. Therefore, it is intended to arrange for the