1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

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

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for claiming the return of deposit (hereinafter “Defendant”) with the Gwangju District Court 2016Gau4916, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on September 23, 2016, stating that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 20 million won and the interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 24, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

B. Accordingly, on May 11, 2018, the Defendant appealed as the Gwangju District Court 2016Na8325, and this Court accepted the Defendant’s defense that offsets the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of deposit against the Defendant and the Defendant’s claim for the payment of goods against the Plaintiff, and rendered a judgment that “the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed” (hereinafter “the subject judgment for retrial”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da27157, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on August 17, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 22, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial fact in this Court

2. Grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the judgment subject to a retrial differs from the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant belongs to the Plaintiff and committed a tort that prevents transaction by himself after receiving the deposit, and thus, the offset against the Defendant was not permitted. As such, Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act stated in the judgment subject to a retrial that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1) and (9) of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial by the head of the retrial office, but in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it appears to be a clerical error under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

I asserts that there are grounds for a retrial under this paragraph.

B. The phrase “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment,” which are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.