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

The grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act constitute separate grounds for retrial. Thus, even if a lawsuit for retrial was filed within the period for filing a retrial, the lawsuit for retrial on the part of the grounds for retrial that was asserted only after the expiration of the period for filing a retrial ought to be dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82No2, Dec. 28, 1982; 90DaDa19, Dec. 26, 1990, etc.). Furthermore, barring any special circumstance, if the original copy of the judgment was served on an attorney, the relevant party becomes aware of the omission of the judgment when it was served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Nu27, Apr. 27, 1990; 92Da3930, Sept. 28, 1993).

According to the records, although Defendant (Plaintiff) submitted a petition for a retrial on October 21, 201 and filed a lawsuit for a retrial, the petition for a retrial did not state any grounds for a retrial, and on February 16, 2012, there were grounds for a retrial omitted from the judgment subject to a retrial. However, in light of the fact that Defendant (Plaintiff)’s legal representative was served with an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial by the Supreme Court on October 5, 201, the lawsuit of this case constitutes an unlawful ground for a retrial that is filed subsequent to the lapse of the period for filing a petition for a retrial under Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, deeming that the lawsuit of this case was filed at the time when the grounds for a retrial were asserted.

Therefore, the litigation 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.