The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Plaintiffs for retrial).

The plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when documents and other articles as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered) in the judgment subject to retrial.

However, unless the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act are based on the fact-finding on the matters to be investigated ex officio by the court of final appeal, the grounds for a retrial against the judgment of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da540 Decided August 18, 2011). The Plaintiffs’ grounds for retrial do not relate to the fact-finding on the matters to be ex officio in the final appeal, and thus, are not legitimate grounds for retrial.

In addition, in order to claim the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act have been satisfied in the instant case, as well as the grounds for a retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da873, Aug. 29, 2016).

The plaintiffs asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment) in the judgment subject to a retrial.

However, since an original judgment was rejected without examining it pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment omitted a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da519 Decided March 12, 2009). Therefore, the part concerning the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act among the lawsuits for retrial of this case is unlawful and dismissed. The part concerning the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed as it is without merit. However, the request for retrial of this case shall be dismissed as it is based on the text.