The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The summary of the grounds for a retrial is erroneous in omission of judgment in the judgment of the court below, and the plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") asserted the above omission of judgment in the appellate brief submitted in the case subject to a retrial. However, the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed without making any judgment on such grounds, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the judgment subject to a retrial did not explain the grounds for rejection of each of the grounds for appeal alleged by the plaintiff in the appellate brief, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act “when a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment is omitted” refers to a case where a party’s act of attack and defense submitted in a lawsuit and that has an influence on the judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment. As long as a judgment has been rendered, it does not constitute omission in the judgment under the said provision, even if the grounds leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting the party’s claims are not individually explained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da218, Jul. 10, 2008; 201Du100, Dec. 8, 2011). Examining the grounds for a judgment subject to a judgment subject to a retrial in light of the foregoing legal principles, the judgment subject to a retrial does not err by omitting the judgment, as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the lower court, thereby rejecting the Plaintiff’s allegation in the grounds for appeal that there was an error of omission in the judgment.