All requests for retrial are dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, plaintiff for retrial).

The gist of the grounds for the request for retrial of this case lies in the purport that there is a ground for retrial falling under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (when there is a defect in granting legal representation right, powers of attorney, or power of attorney necessary to conduct procedural acts) since L, an attorney of the defendant-Appellee (Counterclaim Plaintiff, re-appellant, hereinafter “the defendant”) conducted procedural acts without being delegated by the above defendant in the litigation procedure for the decision subject to retrial.

However, the materials submitted by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the re-adjudication Plaintiff, and the hereinafter “Plaintiff”) alone cannot be deemed as having conducted the procedural acts without being delegated by the above Defendant in the litigation procedure for the judgment subject to a retrial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the grounds for retrial that the Plaintiff was fright cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the retrial costs are dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.