(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가단19270

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) 전주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가단19270

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff filed the same lawsuit against the Defendant with the Jeonju District Court 2013Da34077, which was the same as the instant lawsuit; and (b) the said lawsuit became final and conclusive after the judgment of dismissal was pronounced, and thus, the instant lawsuit constitutes duplicate lawsuit

B. Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a party shall not institute a lawsuit again for a case pending before the court. Even according to the defendant's assertion itself, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit identical to the lawsuit in this case, but the judgment against the plaintiff was finally affirmed. Thus, the defendant's defense, which is based on the premise that the lawsuit identical to the lawsuit in this case continues to exist in the court upon the completion of the lawsuit, is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion caused damages equivalent to KRW 60 million by intentionally killing a mother, which was put on the Plaintiff’s issues owned by the Defendant from 1990 to 2013, while carrying out the Tracking or spraying the Track in the Defendant’s issues owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the tort.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements No. 1-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit identical to the instant lawsuit against the Defendant by Jeonju District Court 2013Da34077, Dec. 27, 2013, but was sentenced to a dismissal ruling on December 27, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”), and the effect of the said final judgment extends to the instant lawsuit identical to the above judgment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case inconsistent with the above final judgment cannot be accepted without any need to further examine the remainder.

Even if the subject matter of the instant lawsuit is different from the final and conclusive judgment of the instant case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제259조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015가단19256

-부산지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가합51951

-전주지방법원 2015.09.01 2015가단19249

-광주고등법원(전주) 2016.02.04 2015나101066

-인천지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단20393