beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Existence of the original judgment
A. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages with the Busan District Court 2014Kadan241845, but the Busan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “original judgment”) on July 17, 2015, and the Plaintiff was served with the above judgment on July 27, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it did not file an appeal.
B. On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial under Article 451(1)9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 and 10 of the Busan District Court. However, the Busan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial on July 7, 2016 (hereinafter “the judgment on retrial”). The Plaintiff was served on July 15, 2016, but the said judgment became final and conclusive because it did not file an appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, substantial fact
2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial
A. The plaintiff asserts that there are grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, and sought a judgment, such as the statement in the purport of the claim.
B. Inasmuch as a lawsuit for retrial on a final judgment that became final and conclusive by the relevant legal doctrine is permitted only when there exist grounds stipulated in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial is unlawful and thus ought to be dismissed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996). C.
Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that an action for retrial may be brought in cases where “when a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment is omitted” and Article 451(1)10 of the same Act provides that “when a judgment on retrial is contrary to a final judgment rendered before the judgment to institute a new trial is rendered,” and that the Plaintiff is almost