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

Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a final and conclusive judgment prior to a trial for a retrial conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the trial for a retrial” refers to the case where the effect of a final and conclusive judgment prior to the trial for a retrial affects the parties to the judgment subject to a retrial, which conflicts with res judicata of the judgment prior to the trial for

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da789, 2010 Jaeda796, Apr. 14, 201, etc.] The gist of the grounds for the instant request for retrial is that: (a) the judgment subject to a retrial is contrary to Supreme Court Decision 2012Da33631, Sept. 12, 2013 (hereinafter “previous judgment”) that the Plaintiff (Defendant) filed against the Defendant and lost, and there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the records, the previous judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below, and it is recognized as a special binding force against the lower court under Article 8 of the Court Organization Act and Article 436(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, but it does not have res judicata effect.

[See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da27, 34, Feb. 14, 1995 (Counterclaim)] Furthermore, even upon examining the subject matter of a lawsuit, the previous judgment and the subject matter of a judgment subject to a retrial are different, and thus, the previous judgment and the subject matter of a judgment subject to a retrial cannot be deemed contradictory.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to review.

Therefore, the retrial of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.