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

Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In the case of Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence” (Article 451(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act). In order to claim grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial shall be presented along with the fulfillment of the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act in addition to such grounds for a retrial. Without the absence of the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial that asserts the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)4

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of a judge who was involved in the trial of the instant case subject to reexamination, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of a judge, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of a judge, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that a final judgment of conviction could not be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, and thus the lawsuit of this case, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act, is unlawful.

Therefore, all of the lawsuits for retrial of this case are dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.