The burden of proving that the grounds for a retrial were known after the delivery of the judgment

The burden of proving that the grounds for a retrial were known after the delivery of the judgment

Salpers

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Supreme Court Decision 2

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

On February 7, 1963, the judgment of the plaintiff for a retrial was rendered at the 13th day of the same month and served on the plaintiff himself/herself. However, the plaintiff was not able to prove any significant matter that might affect the judgment, i.e., the grounds for a retrial only on March 16 of the same year, and it is clear in the records that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for a retrial on April 6 of the same year. However, barring any special circumstance, it is recognized that the plaintiff read the judgment at the time of receiving the service of the judgment requesting a retrial, and that there was an error in the omission of the judgment. Thus, in order to claim that the plaintiff was aware of the grounds for a retrial of March 16 of the same year, it is necessary to prove that there was a special circumstance that the plaintiff would not know the grounds for a retrial until the time when the above judgment was served, but the lawsuit for a retrial cannot be deemed to have been filed within the peremptory period stipulated in Article 426 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the lawsuit for a retrial is dismissed.

Therefore, according to Articles 425, 395, and 383 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the right to balle of the Red Madle, the right to baloman