beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Supreme Court-2017-C-254785 ( November 09, 2017)
Title
Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Summary
The grounds for retrial asserted by the Defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial) do not constitute grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it does not seem that there exist grounds for retrial under each of the above subparagraphs in the judgment subject to retrial even upon examining the record.
Related statutes
Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Cases
2017Reda 1347 Revocation of Fraudulent Act
Plaintiff, Defendant for retrial
Korea
Defendant, Review Plaintiff
The AA et al.
Judgment of the lower court
Supreme Court-2017-C-254785 ( November 09, 2017)
Imposition of Judgment
on October 13, 2018
Text
All requests for retrial are dismissed.
The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).
Reasons
The grounds for request for retrial shall be considered.
Grounds for retrial asserted by the Defendant (Plaintiffs for Retrial) are prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the record does not constitute grounds for retrial, and even upon examining records, each of the above provisions shall be applied to the judgment subject
There is no ground for retrial as prescribed in the subparagraph.
Therefore, all of the appeals shall be dismissed, and the costs of retrial shall be borne by the losing party.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.