2. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

3...

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the above court on June 7, 2014 as to the “whether there was physical fighting between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B” during the course of the damages compensation case, and filed an application for and an objection to the exercise of the right to request tin on June 8, 2014. However, the above court rendered a ruling on July 24, 2014 without any separate decision. This constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that could affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff applies for quasi-deliberation pursuant to Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The judgment subject to a retrial is a cause for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment was omitted as to ① the Plaintiff’s injury to Defendant B, ② whether Defendant B’s accusation and testimony by the Defendants were intentional or grossly negligent, ③ whether the Defendants alleged perjury in the above criminal trial, ④ the Plaintiff’s property damage was omitted.

2. On December 24, 2014, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s application for quasi-examination and rendered a ruling dismissing the request for reexamination on the grounds that “the application for quasi-examination was filed against a ruling that is not subject to quasi-examination and cannot be deemed to have any ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act” against the Defendants on the grounds that the said ruling became final and conclusive on January 10, 2015.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's above ground for review and ground for review are identical to the plaintiff who had already filed a lawsuit for review, but lost.