1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

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

1. On October 13, 2016, the lower court rendered a judgment on April 26, 2017 that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed” as to a claim for damages against the Defendant (No. 2016dada2643960) filed against the Jeonju District Court. Although the Plaintiff appealed, the lower court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed” on August 17, 2018 (No. 2017Na5160; hereinafter “the lower judgment”). The Plaintiff appealed on the ground that the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 29, 2018 (No. 2018da264390), the lower court became final and conclusive by rendering a new judgment to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal as a result of a retrial on November 29, 2018 (No. 2018da264990). After that, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit for retrial against the lower court on January 29, 2019>

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Supreme Court ruled that a lessee who has no right to request renewal can be entitled to protection of the premium (2017Da225312, 225329 (Counterclaim). Since the judgment was changed based on the judgment of the appellate court of this case, this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) In the appellate court, ① the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant, a lessor, without prior communication, to provide proof of the content that the contract would be changed with the new lessee. ② The Plaintiff did not undergo any negotiation and consultation with the new lessee regarding the specific contents of the lease agreement. ③ It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff calculated the premium amount of KRW 45 million as claimed by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff concluded the premium contract with the new lessee and the Plaintiff as the lessor.

or to the defendant.