logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.31 2018재가합27
원인무효 등 확인
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

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 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Jung-gu District Court 2015Kahap54704, the first Incheon District Court 2015Kadan2500, but was transferred.

As stated in the purport of the claim against the defendant, the "verification of nullity of the application for the change of the use of electricity", "the purpose of the electric supply contract and the implementation of the procedure for the change of the type of contract", and "10,000,000 won for consolation money and damages for delay have been filed."

B. On May 18, 2016, the above court dismissed the claim for “verification of invalidation of an application for electric change” and the claim for “performance of the purpose of electric supply contract and the procedure for modification of each type of contract”, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of claims (hereinafter “the judgment on review”). The judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to appeal.

2. The Defendant asserted that he had a significant impact on the judgment subject to a retrial by making a false assertion as follows.

① Although all water tank rooms and irrigation facilities owned by the Plaintiff have been used for personal purposes, the Defendant asserted that the application for electricity use with respect to the above facilities was for common use as drinking water or water for living of the residents of the large village.

② The Defendant filed a civil petition with the Defendant that the residents of the village have too many electricity rates due to the use of the above administration, but the residents of the village did not file such civil petition.

(3) The Defendant alleged that the purpose of the supply contract for the supply of electricity is to spread groundwater jointly used by village residents, and that he/she gave advice to the effect that he/she could be supplied with electricity at a low level if he/she alters the type of electricity into “other public purposes” and “industrial (A) power”. However, the fact is less than the amount of electricity used.

arrow