1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

The plaintiff asserts that there are grounds for a retrial for omission of judgment under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

The proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for a retrial may not be instituted when a party has asserted a cause for a retrial by an appeal or fails to know it. Here, the phrase “when he/she does not know it even if he/she knows it,” should be interpreted to include not only the case where he/she did not appeal after having known that there was a cause for a retrial, but also the case where a judgment becomes final and conclusive because he/she did not appeal even though he/she knew that there was a cause for a retrial in the appellate court. The parties should be deemed to have known when he/she

According to the records, the plaintiff could recognize that he did not appeal even after being served with the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on October 6, 2010. As such, if the plaintiff failed to appeal despite being served with the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial as seen above, and the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive as it is because it constitutes "when the plaintiff did not know of the grounds for a retrial" under the proviso of Article 451 (

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.