1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed.

2. This.

1. Of the instant suit for retrial, the Plaintiffs’ legitimacy of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the agreement was invalid on August 8, 2005 in the judgment subject to retrial was omitted. Thus, this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, a suit for retrial shall be filed within 30 days from the date on which a judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act are known (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act constitute separate grounds for retrial, compliance with

(2) In a case where the original copy of the judgment is served on the party, barring any special circumstance, the party becomes aware of whether the original copy of the judgment was omitted at the time when the original copy of the judgment was served, and thus, the existence of grounds for retrial was known, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds of the denial of judgment ought to be calculated from the date when the original copy of the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da33930 Decided September 28, 1993). According to the records, the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on the Plaintiffs on December 30, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 2, 2014 through the final appeal.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiffs were aware of the existence of the omission of the judgment in the above judgment on December 30, 2013, on which the original copy of the judgment was served. However, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for reexamination of this case on November 24, 2014 after the lapse of 30 days from June 2, 2014, which became final and conclusive, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiffs could not be aware of the omission of judgment even if they were served with the original copy of the above judgment. Thus, the Civil Procedure Act of the instant petition for reexamination of