(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.23 2014재나253

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.23 2014재나253

매매대금

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim is stated.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial is the cause of claim against the defendant Eul for a claim that the purchase price of KRW 100 million and the delayed compensation for the purchase price were due to the cancellation of a payment contract and a resale contract. Since the pre-contract entered into against the defendants as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet among the defendants is fraudulent, it is revoked, and the defendant C filed a lawsuit against the defendant Eul as the Incheon District Court 2005Gahap16894 on July 26, 2007 with the ground of claim that the right to claim a transfer of ownership has a duty to register cancellation, but the judgment against the plaintiff was pronounced on July 26, 2007, and the Seoul High Court 2007Na78076 appealed but appealed on October 29, 2008 (hereinafter "the judgment subject to a retrial"), and it is evident that the plaintiff re-appealed and dismissed on February 12, 2009 and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 18, 2009.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. According to Article 451(1) Subparagraph 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judgment of the Incheon District Court 2008 High Court 2008 High-Ma5137, where the Plaintiff’s assertion of the judgment subject to a retrial can be the basis for determination, which became final and conclusive that D was convicted of perjury by making a false statement contrary to memory even though D was delegated the authority for the sale of F-house from B, the owner of F-house, but D had been delegated the authority for the sale of F-house against his memory. As such,

Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a civil or criminal judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, has been changed according to a different judgment or administrative disposition," shall be deemed grounds for retrial.

Here, the fact that a judgment has been based on a final judgment has a binding force legally or the contents of a judgment have become final and conclusive.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제8호

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.11.06 2019재나1004

-서울고등법원 2015.05.14 2014재나895

-인천지방법원 2018.07.18 2018재나20

-인천지방법원 2016.08.26 2016재나5014

-대법원 2019.10.17 2019다226791