The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

We judge whether there are any grounds for retrial.

Defendant (Plaintiffs for Retrial) asserts that there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when documents and other items as evidence of the judgment were forged or altered) in the judgment subject to retrial.

However, in order to claim the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, there is no evidence to support that the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act have been satisfied, as well as the grounds for a retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da873, Aug. 29, 2016). In this case, there is no evidence to support that the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act have been satisfied.

In addition, the defendant (the plaintiff) asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the decision was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment) in the decision for retrial.

However, since an original judgment was rejected without examining it pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it cannot be deemed that the original judgment omitted a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment.

(2) Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed as unlawful.” However, the part concerning the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act among the grounds for retrial in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. However, in the disposition, the purport that the request for retrial in this case shall be dismissed is indicated, and the costs for retrial shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.