beta
Text
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The plaintiff, on March 24, 2014, filed an order for payment (hereinafter referred to as the "order for payment") with the defendant on behalf of the defendant, stating that "Selim case (hereinafter referred to as "Selim case") paid the defendant 7 members a total of KRW 532 million to move expenses, and thereafter the plaintiff acquired the above obligation to move expenses held by Pelim case against the defendant," and filed an order for payment (hereinafter referred to as "the instant order for payment") as stated in the purport of the claim against the defendant on April 1, 2014. However, on April 16, 2014, the original copy of the order for payment was issued by the court 2014 tea2089, but the defendant raised an objection against the defendant on April 16, 2014.
In this case of this Court 2014Gahap5348, which was implemented as a litigation procedure pursuant to the above objection, C, the representative of the defendant, was absent at the date of first and second pleadings, and this court rendered a judgment accepting all the plaintiff's claims on July 1, 2014 (hereinafter "the judgment subject to retrial"), and the judgment subject to retrial became final and conclusive on July 19, 2014.
C criminal punishment against C, on the other hand, C, in collusion with Seoul Western District Court 2014Ra206, and D, received bribe of 850 million won in total from friendly soil in connection with the duties of the president of the Defendant Union, concluded an additional service contract with an excessive appropriated rate, and executed the service price regardless of the base ratio (violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bribery), and entered into a service contract with friendly land and a land expropriation ruling-related service contract without examining the necessity of concluding the service contract, the adequacy of the service price and the timing for payment, etc., and placed an order for services equivalent to KRW 597.5 billion in total, and placed property damage equivalent to KRW 3951.9 million in difference with the adequate service price to the Defendant.
[Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)] was prosecuted on the last day of the crime.