(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.07.15 2015재나248

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) 부산지방법원 2016.07.15 2015재나248

전세보증금

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. The judgment of the court of first instance that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in Busan District Court 2014Gaso93866, Busan District Court 2014, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for a final judgment subject to a retrial was sentenced, and the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on August 30, 2015 from the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2014Na15610) to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2015, stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,80,000 won, and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 4, 2013 to August 13, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The Defendant’s final appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial is dismissed on November 26, 2015, and it is apparent in the record that the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on November 30,

2. The Defendant’s assertion that, around September 2013, the Defendant sought to return the above money after settling the lease deposit in KRW 1,880,000 between E and E, the wife of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff and E refused to receive the said money, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and E did not pay the rent and management expenses without delivering the leased object. Although the Plaintiff’s rent and management expenses that were not paid after September 2013 deducted from the above lease deposit, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the lease deposit to the Plaintiff was extinguished, the judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked, since the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. First, the above grounds alleged by the Defendant do not constitute grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial.

B. In addition, the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a party may not file a lawsuit for retrial, if the party has asserted a ground for retrial by an appeal or fails to know it, even if he knows it.

According to the records, the defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for retrial in the appellate court, but is subject to a judgment.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.09.30 2016재나115

-의정부지방법원 2018.04.06 2017재가단47

-창원지방법원 2021.04.08 2020재나41

-부산지방법원 2014.09.18 2014재나67

-부산지방법원 2019.03.27 2018재나126