2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

On December 7, 2003, at around 16:17, C, the husband of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “C”), died of an accident that led to approximately 6 guest cars and platforms of the said train and approximately 5-6 meters away from the line while approaching the 4 platform of the E Station in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon at a speed of about 1km in order to stop for passengers to get off and get off on the line.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The plaintiff was negligent in preventing the incident of this case to the E calendars.

In light of the above, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on October 26, 2004, on the ground that the accident of this case, which the plaintiff's husband, occurred due to the negligence of the Republic of Korea, such as defects in the establishment and preservation of the E basin, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, who is the insurer, as the Daejeon District Court 204Kadan12643.

C. The Plaintiff appealed from Daejeon High Court Decision 2004Na10228, but the above court dismissed all the Plaintiff’s appeal and the extended claim on August 11, 2005.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Review") d.

The judgment subject to a retrial was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative, but it became final and conclusive on September 1, 2005 because the Plaintiff did not file an appeal.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The court, which rendered the judgment subject to a retrial, did not investigate the circumstances although the H’s statement, the witness of the instant accident, was intentionally concealed or omitted, and did not conduct a proper examination of evidence on the witness’s statement and the confirmation document submitted by the Plaintiff. He appeared as a witness and testified that H intentionally led to “I see what is the deceased’s seat.”