The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

A litigation on a retrial against a judgment by the court of final appeal shall be allowed only in cases where there are grounds provided for in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the mere fact that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment subject

(2) Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal on December 8, 1987 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Da24, Dec. 8, 1987). In addition, the grounds for appeal that dismissed a final appeal due to a lack of trial are not legitimate grounds for retrial, and the grounds for appeal on the grounds for final appeal are not legitimate grounds for retrial, and the grounds for appeal on the grounds for final appeal that the dismissal of a final appeal without deliberation cannot be deemed as falling under the grounds for rejection of a final appeal, and thus, the grounds for final appeal cannot be

(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu176 delivered on February 13, 1996, 96Da479 delivered on May 7, 1997, etc.). Examining the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff did not make specific arguments as to the grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the judgment subject to retrial. Moreover, the grounds, such as the misapprehension of legal principles, etc. asserted by the Plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial.

In addition, since the argument in the grounds for appeal constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal and dismissed an appeal, the Plaintiff’s argument to the effect that there is no ground for rejection of a trial in the judgment subject to a retrial cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial, and the Plaintiff’s argument is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, by omitting