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. According to the record of confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for solatium 2013da640687 against the Defendant on the ground that C’s doctor C, operated by the Defendant, falsely prepared the medical records of the Plaintiff and acted in a friendly manner with respect to the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013, and was sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2013, and was sentenced to a judgment of dismissal on September 17, 2014 by the appellate court, which is the appellate court, and the above judgment can be recognized as it becomes final and conclusive.
2. Since the plaintiff's argument Eul's doctor C of the hospital operated by the defendant prepared medical records on the plaintiff's medical records and committed an illegal act against the plaintiff's non-comfortable, the defendant must pay consolation money to the plaintiff.
However, C lost the Plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial by making a false statement through a lawyer. The Plaintiff sought revocation of the judgment subject to a retrial based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)5 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant shall pay consolation money to the Plaintiff.
3. Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a person has been led to confession, or obstructed in submitting methods of offence or defense that may affect the judgment, due to any other person’s act subject to criminal punishment,” as one of the grounds for retrial, Article 451(1)5 of the same Act provides that “If a judgment of conviction or judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive on the act subject to punishment or a final and conclusive judgment of a fine for negligence cannot be made on the grounds other than lack of evidence, a lawsuit may be brought in retrial.”
However, the plaintiff asserts that Article 451 (1) 5 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is a ground for retrial (the plaintiff seems to have claimed that the plaintiff's act of intention C is a criminal act under the above provision), and this is related thereto.