1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal and payment of wages during the period of dismissal as the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch 2008Gahap545, and on July 18, 2008, the said court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff against which the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

B. On July 31, 2008, the Plaintiff served an original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial and did not appeal within 14 days, which eventually became final and conclusive on August 15, 2008.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since a new witness to prove the Plaintiff’s assertion was secured after the pronouncement of the judgment subject to a retrial, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “chief 1”).

(2) As to the judgment subject to a retrial, there were no errors in procedural and substantive law regarding dismissal against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was suffering from a long time due to such dismissal, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act exist (hereinafter referred to as “principal”).

B. Na. 1) As to the assertion ①, first of all, Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when a person has been led to confession, or interfered with the submission of means of offence or defense that may affect the judgment, due to an act committed by another person subject to criminal punishment,” the grounds for retrial refer to cases where the submission of means of offence or defense by the party in the pertinent litigation procedure is directly obstructed due to the act subject to criminal punishment of another person, and this refers to cases where the submission of means of offence or defense by the party is directly obstructed. Accordingly, Supreme Court Decision