Waiver of reasoning for non-admission of revision appeal under § 544 ZPO
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (7th Civil Senate) rejected the defendant's complaint against the non-admission of a revision appeal, thereby upholding the judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Köln and leaving the lower court's decision final and binding in favor of the plaintiff; the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred through auxiliary intervention. The dispute arose from a civil action worth approximately €126,318, where the defendant sought to challenge the regional court's refusal to admit a further appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, under which the court waived a detailed reasoning because providing one would not contribute to clarifying the preconditions for the admission of a revision appeal.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiert§ 101 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, § 97 Abs. 1 ZPO; Waiver of reasoning for non-admission of revision appeal under § 544 ZPO: The dispute arose from a civil action worth approximately €126,318, where the defendant sought to challenge the regional court's refusal to admit a further appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. The decisive legal basis for the rejection was § 544 Abs. 6 Satz 2, 2. Halbsatz ZPO, under which the court waived a detailed reasoning because providing one would not contribute to clarifying the preconditions for the admission of a revision appeal.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertLegal basis cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a written reasoning because it would not contribute to clarifying the preconditions for admitting a revision.
Provision cited in the dispositive to order the defendant to bear the costs of the complaint proceedings.
Provision cited in the dispositive to regulate the allocation of costs incurred through the auxiliary intervention.
Volltext
Die Beschwerde des Beklagten gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision in dem Beschluss des 11. Zivilsenats des Oberlandesgerichts Köln vom 14. März 2022 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).
Der Beklagte trägt die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens einschließlich der durch die Nebenintervention auf Seiten der Klägerin verursachten Kosten (§ 97 Abs. 1 ZPO, § 101 Abs. 1 ZPO).
Gegenstandswert: 126.318,14 €
Pamp Halfmeier Graßnack
Sacher Brenneisen