A case recognizing that there is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act

In filing a lawsuit for divorce with the respondent, knowing that the claimant was moving the respondent's resident registration to another place in the domicile living together with the respondent, and that the respondent moved to his/her relative from his/her previous domicile, if the respondent's domicile was entered falsely as his/her domicile on the resident registration, and thus the respondent's favorable judgment was obtained and it became final and conclusive as it was, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act

A

B

Suwon District Court (82d198 Judgment)

The judgment subject to review shall be revoked.

The claimant's claim of this case is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the claimant.

The same shall apply to the order.

An appellant (which shall be limited to the appellant, Appellee, and hereinafter referred to as the appellant) and the respondent (which shall be limited to the appellant and hereinafter referred to as the respondent) shall be divorced.

The trial expenses shall be the respondent.

1. Formation and confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial

According to Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2 (each certified family register), and Eul evidence No. 1 (judgment), each of which is presumed to be true because it is an official document, the claimant and the defendant are the married couple who completed the marriage declaration on November 27, 1975, and they are under the chain. The claimant filed a lawsuit against the respondent for a divorce trial on June 22, 198, and on June 22, 1982, the claimant and the respondent are divorced. The costs of the trial are assessed against the respondent, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 21, 1982, and the period of appeal becomes final and conclusive on July 21, 1982, and the settlement of the family register is completed in accordance with the above final judgment.

2. Therefore, we first judge the grounds for retrial.

In light of the facts stated in Gap's official document, Eul evidence No. 2 (No. 4,7, Eul's identification card No. 4-8, Eul's identification card No. 4-7, Eul's identification card No. 4-7, Eul's identification card No. 3-5, Eul's identification card No. 4-7, and Eul's identification No. 4-7, and Eul's identification No. 4-7, which were not known to the defendant's address for the purpose of the trial, after the defendant's identification of the facts that the defendant had been living together with the defendant's identification card No. 3 and No. 4, the defendant's identification of the facts that the defendant had been living together with the defendant's identification card No. 9, and the defendant's identification of the facts that the defendant had been living together with the defendant's identification card No. 97 and the defendant's identification of the facts that the defendant had been living together with the defendant's non-resident No. 97.

Thus, this constitutes grounds for retrial when a party under Article 9 of the Family Trial Act and Article 422 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, was aware of the other party's domicile or residence, and such lawsuit constitutes grounds for retrial when the defendant filed a lawsuit with his unknown whereabouts or false domicile or temporary domicile despite being aware of the other party's domicile or temporary domicile. The defendant's lawsuit for retrial of this case clearly raised within 30 days from the date on which he became aware of such grounds for retrial is legitimate. Thus,

3. The following request for divorce shall be examined:

As seen earlier, the appellant and the respondent are legally married. The appellant have continued to make a family fighting between husband and wife without the number of days from the third day after marriage. In particular, since the respondent's nature is knife with the knife and knife with the appellant, etc., the appellant cannot continue marital life with the respondent. Since the appellant agreed to divorce with the respondent during June 1978, after having agreed to divorce with the respondent, he/she is still under way with the respondent, then the appellant is entitled to divorce with the respondent. Thus, the appellant's knife and the respondent's knife with the statement of No. 3-5 (Statement), No. 3-4, 7, 8, 10 (Examination of Evidence), and H's testimony during the period of marriage, the appellant's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's k's k's k's k's k.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since there is a ground for a retrial under Article 422 subparagraph 11 of the Civil Procedure Act in a decision on a retrial case, it shall be revoked, and the claim of this case by the claimant shall be dismissed as without merit, and the trial costs shall be decided as per Disposition at the expense of the claimant who has lost through the litigation subject to retrial and the litigation subject to retrial.

Administrative patent judge's lease file (Presiding administrative patent judge)