beta
Text
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant, C, and D as the Incheon District Court Decision 2014GaGa16615, which declared that "the defendant, C, and D, jointly and severally, deliver the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs, and pay money at the rate of KRW 4 million per month from July 31, 2014 to July 31, 2014," which stated that "the defendant, C, and D, jointly and severally, deliver the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs."
B. On September 29, 2014, the Defendant served an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on November 13, 2014.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Defendant asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment subject to a retrial has been rendered by recognizing the content of a letter of guarantee, which constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and the judgment omitted on the important matters that may affect the judgment.
B. Determination 1) A lawsuit for retrial is filed within 30 days from the date a party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after a judgment became final and conclusive (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the existence of grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act can be known by read the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial, barring special circumstances. Thus, unless there is no proof as to the special circumstances, the parties were aware of the existence of grounds for retrial at the time of being served with the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu29, Mar. 30, 2007). In this case, the fact that the Defendant was served with the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial on September 29, 2014, the Defendant should be deemed to have known of the existence of grounds for retrial at that time. The lawsuit for retrial in this case is filed by the Defendant.