logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.02.06 2017재나214
손해배상(기)
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. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages claim amounting to KRW 2.140,000 against the Ulsan District Court Decision 2015Da3771, and the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal under 2015Na21592, but this Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 22, 2015 (hereinafter “the ruling on review”).

On November 12, 2015, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on November 12, 2015 because the Plaintiff did not appeal.

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

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion B and two other parties agreed to repay KRW 1.64 million to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 1.640,000 against B and two other parties, Ulsan District Court 97Gaso7666, Ulsan District Court. The above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. Although the Plaintiff appealed with the Ulsan District Court 98Na1904, the appellate court also rendered an unfair judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by an unfair judgment.

Nevertheless, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the original judgment did not properly determine the Plaintiff’s assertion by misunderstanding the facts.

B. (1) A lawsuit for a retrial is filed within 30 days from the date a party becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the existence of grounds for a retrial, such as omitting a judgment, under Article 451(1)9 of the same Act, can be seen by read the authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial, unless there are special grounds to the contrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the party was aware of the existence of grounds for a retrial upon the delivery of the authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial. If a subsequent judgment becomes final and conclusive

arrow