logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2016재나283
운송료
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

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:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the part of the court 2013 Ghana180237 (hereinafter “each of the instant documents”) seeking the payment of vessel fares, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff on the part of the company B, the Plaintiff managed and supervised by the Plaintiff under the court 2014 Ghana85759 (hereinafter “instant documents”). The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the remainder of the damages incurred by the Defendant, excluding the transport charges based on the instant documents.

On October 28, 2014, this Court rendered a judgment to accept the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim claim.

B. The Defendant appealed in this Court Decision 2014Na17661 (principal lawsuit), 2014Na17678 (Counterclaim). However, on July 9, 2015, the Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against the principal lawsuit on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is either an unfair juristic act or an coercion, and that it cannot be deemed that B violated the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, thereby rejecting the appeal against the Defendant’s counterclaim, and rendered a judgment prior to the retrial that dismissed the Defendant’s appeal against the counterclaim.

The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da45376 (principal lawsuit) and 2015Da45383 (Counterclaim), but on November 17, 2015, the judgment of the court before the retrial became final and conclusive as the final appeal was dismissed.

C. After that, the Defendant filed a petition for a retrial by asserting that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 or 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment prior to the retrial (Counterclaim) with this Court No. 2015J279, 2015J286 (Counterclaim), but this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition for retrial on June 17, 2016 on the grounds that there is no ground as asserted by the Plaintiff in the judgment prior to the retrial.

The defendant is dissatisfied with the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da33141 (main office).

arrow