1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act among the lawsuits for review of this case.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is that no ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act exists from Nos. 3 to No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Among them, a ground for retrial under Article 451 (2) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act may be brought for retrial only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive or a final and conclusive judgment of a conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the lawsuit of this case satisfies the above requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1462, Sept. 14, 206). Ultimately, the part concerning the ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act among the plaintiff's lawsuit of retrial of this case is unlawful, and there is no ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, since the judgment subject to a retrial is based on a very arbitrary and inaccurate survey and appraisal that does not value as evidence.

The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect a judgment,” refers to where no judgment is indicated in the grounds for judgment as to what naturally affect the conclusion of a judgment by means of an attack and defense which are legitimately submitted by a party in a lawsuit.

On the other hand, the above argument by the plaintiff is based on the argument itself, but the decision subject to a retrial is a decision.