1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

On March 15, 2011, this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial citing both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim. On March 21, 2011, the original judgment was served on the Defendant.

On the 30th of the same month, the Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial by this Court No. 2011Na7496, but the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the Defendant, who won the entire judgment at the first instance on February 8, 2013, did not have any interest in appeal.

Although the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da25354, the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal on June 13, 2013 on the ground that the trial was delayed, and the original copy of the ruling was served on the Defendant on June 24, 2013, which became final and conclusive on the same day.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Defendant’s assertion (1) The judgment subject to a retrial omitted a judgment on important matters that may have an impact on the judgment by failing to investigate important evidence (e.g., CD, video, and on-site verification).

(2) Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the attorney failed to submit an adequate means of attack and defense, thereby affecting the judgment.

B. First of all, we examine whether the period of the filing of a retrial complies with the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date the party concerned becomes final and conclusive and the party concerned becomes aware of the grounds for retrial (see Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If an original copy of the judgment is served on the party concerned, barring any special circumstance, the party concerned becomes aware of whether the judgment was omitted at the time when the original copy of the judgment was served, and thus, the party concerned was aware of the existence of the grounds for retrial.