2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The plaintiff appealed due to the lack of evidence to submit the case subject to review, but due to cerebral color, the plaintiff was unable to attend twice on the date of the appellate trial, which led to the withdrawal of appeal, and the decision subject to review became final and conclusive.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

2. Article 456(3) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, when the grounds for a retrial occurred before the final judgment for a retrial becomes final and conclusive, no lawsuit shall be instituted when five years have passed from the date on which the grounds for a retrial arose after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, and the above period shall be a limitation period prepared to prevent the legal unstable situation between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1561, Jun. 25, 191). Since the grounds for a retrial asserted by the Plaintiff was rendered by submitting altered evidence and submitted by the Defendant, the above grounds for a retrial were deemed to have arisen before the final and conclusive judgment for a retrial, but the facts that the judgment for a retrial became final and conclusive on January 4, 2008, and the fact that the instant request for a retrial was made on January 2, 2018 after five years have elapsed from the date on which the judgment for a retrial became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff’s request for a retrial is unlawful by even

3. As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the lawsuit of this case is dismissed without pleading pursuant to Articles 455 and 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.