1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, and.

1. On July 19, 2012, Gwangju District Court rendered a decision for review (hereinafter “decision for review”) with a view to accepting the Plaintiff’s claim as a whole, as stated in the purport of the claim on July 19, 2012, and the Defendant did not file an appeal despite being served with the original decision on July 23, 2012, and the fact that the decision for review became final and conclusive on August 7, 2012 is significant or obvious in this Court.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a retrial suit

A. According to Article 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial may not be instituted upon the lapse of five years after the judgment became final and conclusive.

As seen earlier, the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive on August 7, 2012, and the filing of the instant lawsuit for retrial on February 7, 2019, which was five years after the said lawsuit was filed, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it was filed after the expiration of the period for filing a retrial.

B. Where a lawsuit seeking retrial is asserted as a ground for retrial that does not constitute a legitimate ground for retrial, such lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is unlawful and thus, should be dismissed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996). The ground alleged by the Defendant does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)11 of the Civil Procedure Act by itself, and does not constitute the remaining grounds for retrial under Article 451(1) of the same Act. Thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial.

The instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful on such grounds.

3. As long as the period for filing a petition for retrial of this case is unlawful and the period for filing a petition for retrial has expired, there is no method of correcting the defects.

Therefore, pursuant to Articles 455 and 219 of the Civil Procedure Act, the litigation of this case shall be dismissed without holding any pleadings.