Complaint against refusal to admit revision: omission of reasoning permitted where it does not contribute to clarifying admission criteria
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe German Federal Court of Civil Procedure dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against the refusal to admit revision, resulting in the defendant's ultimate victory and leaving the lower court's judgment in force, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appellate proceedings. The dispute arose from a civil lawsuit involving a financial interest valued at approximately 1.21 million euros, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's decision on the merits. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the determination that providing a reasoned judgment would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, leading to a summary rejection under § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Complaint against refusal to admit revision: omission of reasoning permitted where it does not contribute to clarifying admission criteria: The dispute arose from a civil lawsuit involving a financial interest valued at approximately 1.21 million euros, where the plaintiff sought to challenge the appellate court's decision on the merits. The decisive legal basis for the dismissal was the determination that providing a reasoned judgment would not contribute to clarifying the prerequisites for admitting a revision under § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, leading to a summary rejection under § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertProcedural basis cited in the dispositive to justify omitting the written reasoning for the dismissal of the complaint.
Costs provision cited in the dispositive to assign the costs of the complaint proceedings to the plaintiff.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde der Klägerin gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Urteil des 1. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Koblenz vom 19. September 2024 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 Klägerin trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 1.210.576,37 €
Pamp Halfmeier Jurgeleit
Graßnack Borris