beta
Text
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. In Busan District Court Decision 201Na245604 decided June 19, 201 where the plaintiff filed a claim for the takeover of money against the defendant, the above court rendered a judgment of citing the part of the above court's ruling that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 990,000 won with 5% per annum from July 5, 201 to June 19, 2012, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment." The plaintiff appealed with the Busan District Court 2012Na12259 on October 19, 201, but the above appeal was dismissed, and the facts that the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 2012 due to the failure of the parties to appeal are obvious or obvious in the records.
2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the appellate court’s argument that the Plaintiff reduced the Defendant’s compensation for delay to KRW 90,000 on the unpaid rent to KRW 90,000 is a arbitrary judgment without reasonable grounds, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion is inconsistent with the Supreme Court Decision 90Da14478 Decided March 27, 191, and the appellate court did not make any decision thereon.
Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment.”
B. 1) Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a judgment is omitted with respect to a material fact that may affect the judgment” refers to the method of attack and defense which a party submitted in a lawsuit and has an influence on the judgment, and where a judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, as long as the judgment was rendered, the reasons leading to the judgment cannot be deemed as omitting the judgment pursuant to the above Act even if the party’s grounds for rejecting the party’s claims are not stated in detail or are not individually explained (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da47200, Nov. 24, 2000).