2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the amount of KRW 7,281,591 calculated by deducting the total deposit of KRW 5,350,000 from the sum of overdue rent in arrears under the lease agreement as the Suwon District Court 2017Gabu14031, which was the sum of the overdue rent of KRW 12,631,591, and its delay damages. The said court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 11, 2017.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed to this Court No. 2017Na11558, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on May 16, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

Accordingly, the Defendant re-appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da36540 Decided September 28, 2018, but the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s final appeal, which became final and conclusive as it is.

2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial as stipulated in Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that, in calculating the Defendant’s delinquency in payment under a lease agreement, the sum of the rent in arrears was recognized as KRW 12,631,591 without clear judgment on the basis of calculation, such as the time of surrender of leased object and the number of overdue days.

3. "When a judgment is omitted with respect to important matters that may affect the judgment" in Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to cases where a party submitted in a lawsuit and has not clearly stated the judgment in the reasoning of the judgment with respect to the means of attack and defense that may affect the judgment, and where there is a judgment with respect to it, even if the reasons leading to such conclusion are not clearly stated or the grounds for rejecting the parties' claims are not clearly explained, it shall be referred to in the above Article.