(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.15 2016재나118

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.02.15 2016재나118

증서진부확인의 소

Text

1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. According to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are recognized:

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Incheon District Court 2015Kadan47487 (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”), and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on October 28, 2015 on the ground that “The confirmation of the truth of the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case cannot be deemed an appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status risks and anxiety. Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case does not have a benefit in confirmation.”

B. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, filed an appeal with the Incheon District Court 2015Na17869 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the judgment of the first instance on April 21, 2016. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2016Da21544, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on August 18, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it was by serving the Plaintiff on August 19, 2016.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes “when the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment on important matters affecting the judgment,” since the Defendant forged the network C’s power of attorney and received the instant certificate of personal seal impression, and thereby, caused damage to the Plaintiff, even though there was no decision on this part of the judgment subject to a retrial, the judgment subject to a retrial omitted.”

On the other hand, the judgment subject to review did not omit whether there exists a benefit in confirming the truth of the certificate of the personal seal impression of this case. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s act of representation of the deceased C was forged, etc., and the Defendant’s act of representation was not defective, and thus, on the merits.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제9호

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.21 2018재나50

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단154305

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.10.04 2015재나40

-서울고등법원 2017.04.27 2016재누286

-서울고등법원 2016.12.01 2016재나608