The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The gist of the grounds for the request for retrial of this case is that the Supreme Court served on the attorney-at-law who is not an attorney-at-law belonging to the defendant (hereinafter “the defendant”) in the litigation of the judgment subject to retrial, and declared that the appeal is dismissed on the ground that the appellate brief was not filed within the deadline, there is a ground for retrial falling under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (when there is a defect in granting authority of legal representation, powers of attorney, powers of attorney, or authority necessary for legal action).

However, the Supreme Court recorded the notification of the receipt of the notification of the defendant on September 5, 2016 in the litigation procedure of the judgment subject to a retrial in the electronic litigation system and served the defendant's legal representative on the means of sending e-mail to the e-mail that was entered in the process of user registration pursuant to Article 6 of the Act on the Use, etc. of Electronic Documents in Civil Procedure, etc., and even if the defendant's legal representative did not confirm the electronic document, it shall be deemed to have been served on the date when one week elapsed from the date on which the notification of registration was

Therefore, even if the attorney at the Supreme Court did not receive the notification of the receipt of the trial records as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be said that the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act are acknowledged solely on such circumstance.

Furthermore, in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby admitting facts against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the revocation by deception, or asserting the Defendant.