logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.11.21 2013재나360
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On July 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant by the Ulsan District Court 2008Gaso81650, and was sentenced to a judgment against the said court.

B. The Plaintiff appealed as the Ulsan District Court 2009Na3975, which was dissatisfied with this.

On November 19, 2009, the appellate court rendered a judgment to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “The Defendant fabricated evidence, such as making a false statement, in the case of the loan claim by Ulsan District Court Decision 91Gadan9568, Busan District Court, thereby making the Plaintiff lose a judgment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this as to the fact that the Defendant was detained by the Plaintiff who did not commit the crime in the case of attempted fraud, etc. in the same support 92 Godan1866.”

On November 26, 2009, the Plaintiff received an original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial but did not file an appeal. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on December 11, 2009.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for a retrial that constitutes “when there was an omission of judgment on important matters affecting the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, since the Plaintiff did not properly determine the Plaintiff’s assertion by misunderstanding the facts that the judgment was subject to a retrial.”

However, the grounds cited by the Plaintiff as the grounds for retrial of the instant case are merely that the instant judgment subject to retrial did not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion, and cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The grounds for a retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the period of filing a retrial constitute separate grounds for a retrial. Thus, whether the period of filing a retrial is observed is also prescribed in each of the above subparagraphs.

arrow