(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.20 2014재가단70

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.20 2014재가단70

건물철거

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. Following the existence of the judgment subject to a review is apparent in records or obvious to this court.

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) for the removal of a building against the Seoul Western District Court 2012dan28540 (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the said court rendered a judgment that fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on June 11, 2013 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The defendant asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment subject to retrial was rendered after the plaintiff had known the defendant's address well and was rendered a judgment by means of service after expressing a false address even though the plaintiff knew the defendant's address.

On the other hand, Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for a retrial shall be filed within 30 days from the date the party to the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive and the grounds for retrial shall be known after the judgment becomes final and conclusive. According to the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 3-2, the Plaintiff filed an application for substitute enforcement against the Defendant with the Seoul Western District Court S. on September 10, 2013 and received the decision of acceptance on January 13, 2014. However, the Defendant filed an appeal against the above decision of acceptance on February 3, 2014. The Defendant became aware of the grounds for retrial at least until the appeal was filed.

Therefore, it is clear in the record that the defendant filed a lawsuit for the retrial of this case on July 30, 2014, which was 30 days after the 30th day from the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's lawsuit for retrial of this case is unlawful since the period for filing a retrial under Article 456 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act has expired, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제11호

-민사소송법 제456조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019재나39

-서울행정법원 2015.11.26 2015재구합1018

-울산지방법원 2018.02.06 2017재나481

-울산지방법원 2018.02.06 2017재나344