1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

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

On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant C and the deceased B seeking compensation for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to joint assault between Defendant C and the deceased B by the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Gahap3876. On July 25, 2014, the said court rendered the first instance judgment ordering Defendant C and the deceased B to pay medical expenses of KRW 5,610,368 and consolation money of KRW 1,00,000.

B. The Plaintiff appealed to the judgment of the first instance court as the Daejeon High Court 2014Na3199.

On November 25, 2014, when the above appellate trial was in progress, Defendant J succeeded to the deceased B's lawsuit.

C. In the above appellate trial, the Plaintiff extended the claim for the amount of compensation, reduced the amount of compensation, added the claim for medical expenses and the amount of compensation for lost income, and subsequently changed the claim. On November 13, 2015, the Daejeon High Court sentenced the Defendants to a judgment ordering payment of KRW 17,595,532 (the Defendant’s responsibility was limited to KRW 80%) and KRW 2,000,000,000, the amount of compensation for lost income was KRW 1,510,857, the amount of compensation for lost income, KRW 9,73,263, and KRW 10,710,296, total amount of KRW 21,994,416 (the Defendant’s liability was limited to KRW 80%).

On April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court rendered a ruling of rejection of a trial failure on April 28, 2016, which became final and conclusive.

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was the victim of unilaterally assault, but the judgment subject to review was judged to be responsible for the occurrence and expansion of the damage to the Plaintiff without proceeding to verify the records of the assault-related criminal case.

Therefore, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there was an error of omission of judgment on important matters affecting the judgment.

3. Determination as to the legitimacy of a retrial suit is made.