logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.27 2015재가합16
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The following facts are clear in records:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, claiming that “the Defendant changed the phone number guidance system via the reduction number No. 114,” and that “the Defendant changed the phone number guidance system according to the Plaintiff’s proposal,” and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for damages or patent fees due to copyright infringement under this Court No. 2014Ga6019.

On February 4, 2015, this Court sentenced the instant judgment subject to a retrial with the purport to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.

The original copy of the instant judgment subject to review was served on February 11, 2015 on the Plaintiff.

On February 25, 2015, without filing an appeal against the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial on February 25, 2015, and on February 26, 2015, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

As the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the suit for retrial of this case is omitted in the judgment subject to retrial of this case, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there is omission of judgment on important matters

If an original copy of the judgment is served on the party, the party should be deemed to have known of whether the judgment was omitted when the original copy of the judgment was served on the party, barring special circumstances.

However, the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the parties may not file a lawsuit for retrial when they have asserted the grounds for retrial by an appeal or do not know it with the knowledge thereof.

Here, the phrase “when one does not know that there exists a cause for a retrial” shall be interpreted to include not only cases where an appeal is filed with the knowledge that there is a cause for a retrial, but also cases where a judgment becomes final and conclusive because the appeal is not filed in the appellate court.

arrow