The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appellant).

Unless there are special circumstances, it should be deemed that a judgment subject to retrial was aware of the existence of the omission of judgment when it was served on a party or legal representative, and therefore, in a case where a lawsuit for retrial was filed on the grounds of the omission of judgment 30 or more days after the filing period for retrial was filed, the lawsuit for retrial shall be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4292Du25, Jan. 25, 1962; Supreme Court Decision 82Da20, Dec. 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 87Hu55, Jul. 21, 1987).

Therefore, the judgment of retrial in this case was rendered on July 7, 1987 and served the original copy on July 22 of the same year with the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff")'s live partner, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial on September 3 of the same year on the ground that there was a deviation from judgment in the judgment for retrial on September 13 of the same year, and it was confirmed that the lawsuit was withdrawn on September 13 of the same year. Unless there were special circumstances, the court below affirmed that the lawsuit of retrial in this case filed on February 15, 1989 was unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff was presumed to have known that there was a ground for deviation from judgment as the ground for retrial in this case on September 22 of the same year and on September 3 of the same year, 1987.

The issue is without merit, from its own point of view, and based on facts not recognized by the court below, to criticize the judgment of the court below.

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

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)