1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

On August 21, 2009, on May 14, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court 2009Guhap3501). On April 22, 2010, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “the subject judgment”).

B. Although the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, on July 7, 2011, the judgment dismissing the appeal (Seoul High Court 2010Nu13311) was rendered, and the Plaintiff appealed again, but the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on October 27, 2011 (Supreme Court Decision 201Du18564) and the said judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. In a case where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, it is not possible to institute a lawsuit on the judgment of the first instance (Article 451(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). In such a case, a lawsuit on the trial of the first instance, which was brought to the court of first instance, which is not the appellate court's judgment, is not the subject of a retrial, and thus, a lawsuit failing to meet the requirements for a retrial is not deemed to be a lawsuit violating the jurisdiction of retrial, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a lawsuit on the retrial, which was instituted in the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, is the subject of a judgment of the first instance or the subject of the judgment of the appellate court. On the other hand, whether a lawsuit on the merits of the case

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1981 delivered on February 28, 1984).

In light of the above legal principles, the case was examined by the plaintiff, and the decision of the court of first instance in Incheon District Court No. 2009Guhap3501 was rendered by the Director of Review.