임금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).
1. On September 1, 2010, the judgment of the court below rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on the grounds that the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant as to Sep. 1, 2010, 9,000 won, 7,000,000 won, and damages for delay against the plaintiff Eul, and the defendant appealed as the District Court 2010Na1584, and the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the return of embezzlement under 2010Na14859 of the same court. However, on May 19, 201, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing both the defendant's appeal and counterclaim claim (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of the court of final judgment"), and thereafter, it is evident that the defendant filed a counterclaim with the court as to May 19, 201, 201, 474 (main claim), 201Da43781, 2071, 2081.
2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial
A. Defendant’s assertion (1) around May 1, 2013, which became final and conclusive after the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, the Defendant inquireds the users of cashier’s checks issued by the Defendant, etc., and finds that the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff A and KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff B before the date of closing argument in the judgment subject to a retrial. As such, the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the determination of the above payment, it argues to the purport that it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act
② In addition, the Defendant determined that the judgment subject to a retrial had worked for the Plaintiff B from January 2, 2007 to May 31, 2008, and had worked until May 31, 2009. The Defendant asserts to the effect that this constitutes grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. (1) Determination (1) A lawsuit seeking retrial, which states that the final judgment as to the assertion was omitted on important matters that could affect the judgment, shall be considered as grounds for retrial.