beta
Text
1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6, 7, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows.
Reasons
1. Recognizing facts, the following facts are either of the parties to a dispute or of a record:
A. (1) On July 28, 2006, at around 20:50, the Plaintiff, his mother, driving a G Lone Star (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) with the network H, his mother, and met the starting part of the Central Separation Ga (hereinafter referred to as the “Ga” in this case, from the following to the end of the five-lane road in front of the intersection of the national defense graduate school in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant intersection”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant intersection”) in accordance with one-lane of the five-lanes of the five-lane road in front of the intersection in Mapo-gu, Seoul.
(2) On the other hand, I driven a JKan Corpon vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “afterward vehicle”) and proceeded along the two-lanes of the 5-lane road in front of the intersection of this case along the two-lanes of the 5-lane road in front of the intersection of this case, with the front part of the vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which shocked the instant guard, as described in paragraph (1).
(3) The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the left-hand sliding frame, etc. due to the instant traffic accident, and the Deceased died due to brain ties around July 28, 2006.
B. A final judgment subject to a retrial (1) on August 1, 2008, the Plaintiff, C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) who is the spouse of the Deceased, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, who is the insurer of the vehicle after August 1, 2008, seeking the payment of damages due to the instant traffic accident.
(Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap75473). On September 17, 2010, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of the plaintiff et al. on the ground that I's negligence on the occurrence of the instant traffic accident is not recognized.
(2) The plaintiff et al. is dissatisfied with the first instance judgment.