1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. There are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)5, 8, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff.

B. Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In any of the following cases, a lawsuit for a retrial may be brought against the final and conclusive judgment: Provided, That this shall not apply where the parties have asserted the grounds by appeal or have not known it to the contrary,” and Subparag. 5 provides, “when a confession was made, or a submission of means of offence or defense that may affect the judgment is obstructed by the act of another person subject to criminal punishment,” and “when a judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, has been altered by another judgment or administrative disposition, has been omitted by another judgment or disposition,” and Subparag. 8 provides, “when a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment has been omitted by another judgment or administrative disposition”.

First, as to whether there are grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)5 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is such grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial.

Next, in light of the proviso of Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act and the proviso of Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act as to whether there exists a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial, a lawsuit for retrial cannot be brought against the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal, which is alleged in the ground of appeal, and if there is an omission in the judgment of the court below, it can be known if the original judgment was served on the original judgment and read the grounds for appeal. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it can be argued that there was an omission in the judgment when the original judgment was served on the original judgment.