logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (제주) 2017.03.29 2016재나35
토지원상회복 등
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 have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and Jeju District Court No. 201Gahap2544 against the Defendant and Jeju District Court, and was sentenced to a judgment of the first instance court against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2012. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and filed an appeal under this Court ( Jeju)201Na442. On August 22, 2012, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “former judgment”).

Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da201892, on November 29, 2012, the judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court was rendered on November 29, 2012, which became final and conclusive before the retrial.

B. On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for a retrial against the judgment prior to the retrial under this Court ( Jeju) No. 2014Na79, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial on April 29, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 19, 2015 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal against the said judgment.

C. In other words, on May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment of this Court ( Jeju) No. 2015Na38, supra). However, on March 23, 2016, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial,” collectively with the judgment of No. 2014Na79, supra), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal against the said judgment.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that “The public officials belonging to the Defendant completed unlawful registration by forging the relevant land cadastre or a certified copy of the register, etc., and based on relevant evidence, the judgment subject to a retrial has grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

B. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judgment shall be rendered.

arrow