The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff, extended in the first instance trial and the litigation of the retrial of this case.

2. In determining the legitimacy of the part of the claim extended by the Defendant in the first instance trial, the Defendant filed a retrial suit in the first instance court, and sought compensation for damages due to the Plaintiff’s tort by expanding the amount claimed as a counterclaim to KRW 64,000,000.

However, filing a new claim by combining lawsuits for retrial is not permissible, and it is not allowed to expand the claim to the same purport (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da41977, Sept. 10, 2009). Therefore, the part of the Defendant’s claim expanded in the first instance trial is unlawful.

3. Determination on the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The defendant's assertion that, after a judgment for review becomes final and conclusive, administrative disposition of acceptance of the instant case, which served as the basis of the judgment for review, became null and void by the administrative litigation, the defendant asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when a judgment of civil or criminal cases, or other judgments or administrative dispositions, which served as the basis of the judgment, were altered by a different

B. "When a civil or criminal judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition based on a judgment has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition" as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where the judgment or administrative disposition based on a final judgment is legally binding, or a judgment or administrative disposition based on a fact-finding in the final judgment has been changed finally and retroactively by another judgment or administrative disposition, and the submission of materials for fact-finding in this context has been adopted as evidentiary materials for fact-finding in the final judgment.