The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Plaintiff for retrial).

Article 7(1) of the Court Organization Act provides that the judgment authority of the Supreme Court shall be conducted by a panel of not less than 2/3 of all Justices: Provided, That unless it falls under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, a panel composed of not less than three Justices may be tried first and tried only when they agree. Article 7(1)3 provides that “Where it is recognized that there is a need to modify the opinion on interpretation and application of the Constitution, law, order or rule expressed in the previous Supreme Court.” Thus, even though the opinion on interpretation and application of the law, etc. expressed in the judgment subject to a retrial changes the opinion expressed in the Supreme Court decision previously rendered in the previous Supreme Court decision, it constitutes a ground for retrial of Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act where “when the court has not constituted a court in accordance with the law,” and the judgment subject to a retrial cannot be deemed as a ground for retrial of the lease agreement that is not a co-owner at the expiration of the lease term, unless there is a special circumstance that the lease term expires after the expiry of the lease agreement.

In this case, the Supreme Court Decision 66Da1467 Decided October 25, 1966 cited by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for reexamination) stated that “a lease which is implicitly renewed pursuant to the provisions of Article 639(1) of the Civil Act shall be a lease contract with no agreed term.”