logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.06 2015재나149
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for damages as Busan District Court Decision 2010Kadan131476, which stated in Paragraph 3 of the purport of the petition for retrial. The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 20, 2013 (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).

B. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed as Busan District Court Decision 2013Na14948, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the appellate court judgment”).

The judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on May 9, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the appellate judgment as Busan District Court 2014Na166, but the above court dismissed the part on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act among the Plaintiff’s above lawsuit, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the petition for retrial (the subject case of retrial).

The judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on June 26, 2015, and on July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case against the judgment subject to a retrial.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. There are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment of the first instance and the appellate court.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that “Nos. 53-6 and No. 54 and 55 (including each number), which are evidence of fact-finding in the judgment of the first instance court and the appellate court, were forged,” the judgment subject to a retrial did not render any judgment, and therefore, there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

3. Determination on the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The primary determination in a new judgment is limited to whether there exists a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to retrial.

However, the grounds for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff are below.

The remainder, except the reasons stated in this subsection, is not against the judgment subject to a review of this case.

arrow