The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that there were grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Apr. 8, 1966; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the grounds that there were grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Dec. 26, 1964; hereinafter the same shall apply) and that there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the former Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment of civil or criminal cases, or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which served as the basis of the judgment, was altered by a different judgment

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the grounds for retrial by the Defendant (Reopening Defendant) on the above Seoul High Court Decision 65Na321, which became final and conclusive, were not recognized as grounds for retrial. In so doing, the lower court revoked the part regarding the Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff) among the instant judgment subject to retrial, and dismissed all of the Defendant (Reopening Defendant)’s petition for retrial corresponding to the revoked part.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the deliberation and trial of a new trial on the final judgment, thereby omitting judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the base point of time for determining a new trial on the original final judgment, which is the final judgment subject to new trial, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.