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

The gist of the grounds for the request for retrial of this case lies in the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment court is not constituted under the law), which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 451(1)9 (when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment is omitted) of the same Act.

However, the judgment subject to a retrial is determined to constitute a ground for non-judicial review under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Final Appeal. In so doing, the purport of the judgment below that the interpretation of legal order rules or disposition in accordance with Article 4(1)3, 4, and 3 of the same Act does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and that there is no need to modify the Supreme Court precedents.

Therefore, since the judgment subject to a retrial does not constitute a change in the previous opinion of the Supreme Court, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ground that the judgment subject to a retrial was not conducted by a collegiate body of not less than two-thirds of all Justices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da94, Jun. 13, 1997). In a judgment subject to a retrial, the grounds for appeal against the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment constitutes a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which omitted a judgment on important matters affecting the judgment, and dismissed the appeal for this reason

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu176 delivered on February 13, 1996, etc.). Therefore, the retrial costs 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 on the bench.