The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

The defendant (hereinafter "the defendant") asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, which is a judgment not to proceed with a trial.

"When a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, has been altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition," which is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, means a case where a judgment or administrative disposition, which has become a basis of a judgment, is legally binding, or which has become a basis of fact-finding in the final judgment, has been altered by another judgment or administrative disposition thereafter.

(2) The grounds cited by the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant revoked ex officio a disposition imposing corporate tax, which became the object of revocation in the judgment subject to a retrial, before the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive; and (b) such circumstance does not constitute grounds for a retrial.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment) in the judgment subject to retrial. However, the argument on the ground for appeal as to the judgment subject to retrial constitutes a ground for non-examination under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and that the appeal was dismissed without further deliberation. Thus, there is no omission of judgment on the grounds for

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the filing of a request for retrial, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.