logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.03.27 2018재나126
임대차보증금
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to review:

The Plaintiff and the first instance judgment joint Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for lease deposit against the Defendant, Busan District Court 2016Kadan8628, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff and A’s claim on March 22, 2017.

On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed as Busan District Court 2017Na46073, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

(hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision for review.” The Plaintiff appealed against the subject decision for review and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da223382, but the final appeal was dismissed on June 15, 2018, and on June 21, 2018, the subject decision for review became final and conclusive after being served the original copy of the judgment.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The summary is that the plaintiff did not accept the plaintiff's various kinds of evidence before the appellate court and did an doubtful act, such as excluding part of the co-Plaintiffs, and that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case on the grounds that material evidence was not submitted in the appellate court, but did not specify the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) of the

However, among the plaintiff's assertion, the grounds for retrial and the most close to the above grounds for retrial are deemed to be "when a confession was made, or a disturbance was obstructed in submitting the means of offence or defense that may affect the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is deemed to be "when a judgment on important matters affecting the judgment was omitted" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the same Act. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is determined as grounds for retrial.

Judgment

Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is judged on the grounds of Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, is guilty of the act subject to punishment in the case of Article 451(1)4 through 7.

arrow