The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

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

The judgment subject to a retrial reversed the part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Defendant for a retrial) regarding lost income, and remanded that part of the case to the lower court, and dismissed all of the remaining appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Defendant for a retrial) and the appeals by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Plaintiff for a retrial).

We examine the litigation for retrial on the part remanded among the original judgment.

The Supreme Court's reversal and return judgment does not constitute "final final judgment" under Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act that prescribes the subject of retrial.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Ja27 delivered on February 14, 1995). Therefore, a lawsuit for retrial on the above part of the judgment subject to a retrial is unlawful.

On the other hand, a lawsuit for retrial may be brought only where any of the grounds prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act exists.

However, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Plaintiff for reexamination) did not claim specific grounds for request for retrial as to the remainder of the judgment subject to retrial, excluding the above remand portion.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit for retrial is also unlawful.

Therefore, the retrial suit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.