beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
Reasons
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:
The plaintiff received KRW 130,00,00 from the defendant in relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached Form (hereinafter "traffic accident of this case"). The plaintiff gave up all rights to the defendant and gave up any lawsuit or objection to the defendant (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"). After the agreement of this case, the plaintiff suffered additional damages to the plaintiff, the agreement of this case constitutes an unfair juristic act and becomes null and void or the declaration of intention due to mistake is cancelled and its validity is no longer effective. Thus, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant for damages compensation claim against the defendant, asserting that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for additional damages amounting to KRW 5,011,880, the additional damages amount due to the traffic accident of this case, and delay damages damages amounting to KRW 5,01,00,000,000, the above court rendered a ruling of dismissal on October 19, 2010.
B. Accordingly, while the Plaintiff appealed to this Court No. 2010Na17244, this Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 26, 2011 (hereinafter “the ruling on review”). The Plaintiff re-appealed to Supreme Court Decision 201Da176566, but the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal on May 26, 201, on the ground that the instant case does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, the said judgment on review became final and conclusive on May 26, 2011.
2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for retrial is that the instant agreement is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order, and that the instant agreement is revoked by an expression of intent by mistake. The Plaintiff omitted judgment on the evidence No. 13, No. 17-5, No. 7-6, and No. 28 submitted by the Plaintiff. Thus, Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act is an original judgment.