B. If the ground of appeal did not assert the omission of judgment in the original judgment, barring any other circumstance, a retrial suit cannot be instituted against the original judgment on the same ground.

B. If the ground of appeal does not contain any assertion on the omission of judgment in the original judgment, a retrial suit cannot be instituted against the original judgment on the same ground except in extenuating circumstances.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant.

According to the court below's decision, the court below asserted that the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant (the defendant requesting a retrial)'s assertion based on the contents of Nos. 2 and 3 evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the new trial (the appellate brief submitted by the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant in the case subject to the new trial, and the judgment of final appeal on their grounds) and the purport and case records prior to pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff (the defendant requesting a retrial) 1 and the plaintiff (the defendant requesting a new trial) 2 asserted that they are not a real person but a processed person, and they are judged in the final judgment of the above final judgment of the court of final appeal. Since the above records are legitimate, the court below's determination that the above ground for new trial cannot be a legitimate ground for new trial pursuant to the provisions of Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, there is no error in the judgment that the above ground for new trial cannot be a legitimate ground for new trial

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 3

According to the original judgment, the court below decided that there was no omission of judgment that can be the grounds for retrial even after examining the original judgment and the records of the case which became the object of the retrial. In addition, even if the records were examined, it cannot be viewed that there was an error in the above judgment, and the court below did not err in holding that "if there was a omission of judgment, it can be known that there was a omission of judgment as a service of the judgment, barring any other special circumstances, the service of the judgment can be asserted as the grounds for appeal, but it cannot be viewed as a single record and it cannot be viewed as a ground for retrial pursuant to the proviso of Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act." (The original judgment which became the object of the retrial in this case is that the plaintiffs accepted the claim against the defendant for transfer registration of share ownership on the land at the time of the judgment) and the written reply (this reply as to the other party's grounds for appeal, and even if it is evident that the defendant submitted the grounds for appeal after the lapse of the period to submit it, it cannot be viewed as unlawful.

As to the ground of appeal No. 4

Upon examining the records of the case, that is, the original judgment that became the object of the case's review has the grounds for retrial that conflict with the final judgment prior to that, such as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment had asserted it as the grounds for retrial in the original judgment. Moreover, even by the theory of lawsuit, the parties and their claims are different from the original judgment, and one of them is merely the rejection of the lawsuit, and therefore, the grounds for appeal on this point cannot be adopted.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)