(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.20 2015재나301

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.20 2015재나301

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records.

In the case of Seoul Central District Court 2013Da338010, the first instance court, which was the first instance court of the case filed against the Defendants, the said court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on July 15, 2014, and rejected the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the amount paid by the Defendant’s judgment on February 6, 2013, 201Na4028, and 40235 (Counterclaim). The compulsory execution based on the amount paid by the Defendant’s judgment on February 6, 2013, from December 30 to January 9, 2013, the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 1,014,635 per month against the Defendant and KRW 39,010,831, and from December 30, 2010 to September 18, 2013.”

B. As to this, the Defendants appealed by Seoul Central District Court 2014Na40069. On April 24, 2015, the appellate court accepted the Defendants’ appeal and rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to revoke the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance and to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the said judgment subject to a retrial, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal on August 27, 2015, the said judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

In order to constitute a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority required for conducting a procedural act by a representative,” it should be deemed that the person himself/herself or his/her legal representative could not conduct a substantive procedural act due to the defect of authority.

Supreme Court Decision 200

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제3호

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.04.03 2013재나1051

-부산고등법원 2014.12.23 2014재나60

-수원지방법원 2018.05.15 2017재가단50

-대구지방법원안동지원 2019.11.12 2019재가단1006

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.18 2016재나247