2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming for damages against the Defendant, which stated that “Although the Plaintiff had lent KRW 867,00 to B, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the Plaintiff’s loan, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the total amount of property damage and consolation money that the Plaintiff sustained, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 25, 2009.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed again as 2009Na4701, but the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on February 11, 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The full bench, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for return of loans against B as grounds for retrial, asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant, even though it committed a tort that leads to

3. A lawsuit on a retrial on a final judgment which became final and conclusive shall be permitted only when there exist grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and where the grounds alleged by the plaintiff for retrial do not constitute such grounds,

On the other hand, "when the judgment has been omitted on important matters affecting the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the method of attack and defense which a party submitted in a lawsuit and has an influence on the judgment, and where the judgment has not been clearly stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and the grounds alleged by the plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for retrial of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.