1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a claim against the Defendants for the amount of surety liability, such as the description in the claim, with Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Gaso293913, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 1, 2014.

On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court as 2014Na23807, and this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da224032, but the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, but on September 24, 2015, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that an original judgment is subject to a retrial is based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal without examining or confirming a preparatory document (written grounds for appeal) on March 19, 2010, which was submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence A No. 8, and this constitutes a case where the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment.

B. The proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for retrial may not be instituted if a party asserts any ground for retrial by an appeal or fails to know it, even though he/she knows it.

In light of the purport of these provisions, a suit for retrial cannot be filed against the original judgment which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal, which is alleged in the ground of appeal, and if the original judgment was omitted, the original judgment can be served with the original judgment, and if the reasoning of the judgment is read, the original judgment can be seen. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it can be known that the original judgment was omitted when it was served with the original judgment, and it could be asserted as the ground of appeal unless it is known to the effect that

Ultimately, Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is not applicable to cases where special circumstances exist.