Waiver of revision refusal justification due to lack of clarifying value
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal in a civil proceeding, thereby upholding the lower court's order refusing leave for revision and confirming the finality of the appellate judgment. The defendant, who lost in the second instance, challenged the admissibility of a revision appeal regarding a dispute with a value of 350,000 €, but the court found no reason to review the case further. The ruling is based on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, under which the court waived providing a written justification because its reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision, and § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, which assigns the costs of the complaint proceedings to the losing party.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Waiver of revision refusal justification due to lack of clarifying value: The defendant, who lost in the second instance, challenged the admissibility of a revision appeal regarding a dispute with a value of 350,000 €, but the court found no reason to review the case further. The ruling is based on § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, under which the court waived providing a written justification because its reasoning would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision, and § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, which assigns the costs of the complaint proceedings to the losing party.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertBasis for waiving the written justification because it would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision.
Basis for imposing the costs of the complaint proceedings on the losing defendant.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 4. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Karlsruhe in Freiburg vom 13. Dezember 2021 wird zurückgewiesen.
Von einer Begründung wird abgesehen, weil sie nicht geeignet wäre, zur Klärung der Voraussetzungen beizutragen, unter denen eine Revision zuzulassen ist (§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO).
Die Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 350.000 €
Pamp Kartzke Graßnack
Sacher Borris