logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.07 2016재나93
용역비
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 30, 2010, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) sold the agricultural street (hereinafter “instant machinery”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) and agreed on August 30, 201, that the period of warranty against the said route was 12 months from the date of delivery, as a company running the manufacturing, sale, and repair business of agricultural machinery.

B. On January 14, 2014, the Defendant received A/S with respect to the instant machinery on the ground of “existing Magazine” and received the Plaintiff’s receipt of A/S with respect to the instant machinery. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s employee B visited the Defendant’s house to exchange double-pactners and rubber caps, and the Plaintiff incurred a total of KRW 250,000 repair cost (hereinafter “instant repair cost”) at the cost of parts, royalties, and business trips.

On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the above mechanical repair cost.

C. The court of first instance sentenced the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the repair cost of this case and the damages for delay,” and the Defendant appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on the ground that the repair cost of this case occurred after the defect warranty period of the instant machine, and the Defendant filed a second appeal but dismissed the appeal on October 27, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On November 14, 2016, the defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial.

2. In order to institute a lawsuit for a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive on the legitimacy of the claim portion, there must be grounds for retrial

(1) Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, while filing a lawsuit for a retrial of this case, the Defendant does not clearly specify what grounds for a retrial exist, and even after ex officio examination of the evidence presented by the Defendant, it is recognized that there exists a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)1 through 11 of the judgment for retrial and the judgment of the first instance

arrow