logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.11 2015재나119
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

The following facts are apparent or apparent to this court in the judgment subject to a retrial:

The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for damages against the Defendant for tort, such as the Defendant’s employee C’s termination of the Plaintiff’s installment savings at will, after the Plaintiff’s employee terminated the Plaintiff’s installment savings, using the Plaintiff’s repayment of loan obligations that were not available to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is liable to compensate for such damages. However, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 17, 2008.

(Seoul District Court Decision 2008Gadan1104). The plaintiff appealed against this, but before the review, the party members dismissed it on October 14, 2010.

(Judgment of review, Daejeon District Court 2009Na455). The plaintiff filed a second appeal against the plaintiff. However, on January 27, 2011, the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal to the Supreme Court due to the delay of hearing, which became final and conclusive as it is.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da95284). The judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff as to the legitimacy of the suit in this case was based on the false statement of the relevant parties, including C, etc. In this regard, C was punished for false testimony in a related criminal case regarding loans made by Defendant Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “instant loans”) around March 20, 1996 in the Plaintiff’s name.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages against E and C, and the first instance court accepted part of the plaintiff's claim against C, and thereafter became final and conclusive through appeal and appellate trial.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451 subparagraphs 7 through 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Although party members should have summoned all E who managed and supervised C and them as witnesses, there is a ground for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since they should be presented as documentary evidence and judged only based on this.

arrow