beta
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. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to review is clear in records or obvious to this court.
On July 26, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants (the Busan District Court 2005da11028), and the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claims by accepting some of the Plaintiff’s claims.
B. Although the Plaintiff appealed (Seoul District Court 2007Na11757), the above court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 11, 2008 (hereinafter “the ruling on review”). The Plaintiff appealed again (Supreme Court 2008Da12583), but the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 14, 2008, and the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on April 17, 2008.
C. On December 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial.
2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the judgment subject to a retrial is based on a false statement by the witness D of the first instance trial; (b) there was grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (c) the Plaintiff did not recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 4 million to the Defendants
3. Determination
A. (1) An action for retrial on the assertion shall be brought within 30 days from the date the relevant party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act); and where the grounds for retrial have arisen after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, no action for retrial shall
(Article 456(4) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 456(4) and (3) of the Act). On June 8, 2010, the Busan District Court sentenced D to a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for six months against D on the ground of criminal facts in which "D borrowed KRW 13 million from the Plaintiff in a lawsuit subject to review, despite the fact that it borrowed KRW 13 million from the Plaintiff," and sentenced D and the prosecutor appealed against the above conviction, but all appeals were dismissed on November 4, 2010.