beta
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. Judgment subject to review
A. Where an appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits in the first instance court, it is not possible to institute a lawsuit on the first instance court's judgment. In such a case, a lawsuit on the first instance court's judgment, which is not the appellate court's judgment, shall be subject to a judgment, which is not the subject of a retrial, and thus, it is not appropriate to satisfy the requirements for a lawsuit on retrial, and it shall not be deemed a lawsuit which merely violated the jurisdiction of retrial. However, whether a lawsuit on the case which was instituted in the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits in the appellate court is subject to a judgment on the first instance or a lawsuit on the appellate court's judgment is not determined with only an indication of the judgment
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Meu1981, Feb. 28, 1984).
As to the instant case, the following facts are apparent in the record or obvious to this court:
1) Defendant (Plaintiffs for review, hereinafter “Defendant”)
(2) On August 5, 2013, the new trial case of the 2013 Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) which was filed with the Appellate Division of the 2013rd District Court (Seoul District Court) was dismissed on the ground that it was an unlawful lawsuit lacking the litigation requirements for new trial on November 14, 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed from the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court 2013Na221). On June 5, 2014, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that “The first instance court that dismissed the Defendant’s request for new trial on the ground that it is reasonable to dismiss the Defendant’s request for new trial on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is groundless, but only the Defendant appealed and cannot change the first instance judgment that would be disadvantageous to the Defendant.”