1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

The plaintiff argues that the judgment subject to a retrial has a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendant was not able to use and benefit from the leased object solely because it was attributable to his own reason, the defendant did not decide on the plaintiff's argument that monthly rent and management expenses should be paid to the plaintiff according to the lease agreement, just as in the case where the defendant received and used the leased object.

The proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for a retrial may not be instituted when the parties have asserted or did not assert any grounds for retrial by an appeal. Barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the parties received the original copy of the judgment to have known that there was a ground for a ground for a retrial of judgment based on the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991). According to the records, the Plaintiff served the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial on April 3, 2012, and filed an appeal against the judgment subject to retrial on the 10th of the

6. Since an appeal is dismissed on 28. 28. It is recognized that the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive due to the dismissal of the appeal, it is no longer possible for the plaintiff to file a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds as alleged above, since it constitutes a case where the plaintiff alleged a ground for retrial

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.