1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Although the Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for damages due to a tort under the Ulsan District Court Decision 2012Gaso2698, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 14, 2012, and the Plaintiff appealed on this issue with the same court 2012Na4428, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 2, 2012 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), and on November 21, 2012, the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 21, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal is apparent or obvious in the record at this court.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that a judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the Plaintiff did not properly determine the Plaintiff’s assertion by misunderstanding the facts, which constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that might affect the judgment”.

B. A lawsuit for retrial is filed within 30 days from the date a party becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the grounds for retrial are known, and the existence of grounds for retrial, i.e., omission of judgment pursuant to Article 451(1)9 of the same Act, can be known by read the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the party was aware of the existence of grounds for retrial upon the delivery of the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial. If a subsequent

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da33930 Decided September 28, 1993, etc.). In the instant case, where there was no assertion or evidence as to the grounds for retrial that the Plaintiff was unaware of the grounds for retrial at the time when the original copy of the judgment was served, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial on November 6, 2012, when the original copy of the judgment for retrial was served.