1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a claim against the Defendant for damages due to an illegal act against the lower court’s 2017da316, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 22, 2017, and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive around the time that the Plaintiff did not file an appeal is apparent in the record.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Since a public prosecution was instituted against the Defendant’s tort on July 30, 2018 after the Plaintiff’s assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a civil or criminal judgment, or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, was changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition).

B. We examine the judgment, and the "when the judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition", which is the grounds for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to the case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of the judgment, legally binding force of the final judgment, or which is the basis of fact-finding in the final judgment, has been changed by another judgment or administrative disposition, and thereafter the judgment or administrative disposition which is the basis of fact-finding in the final judgment, has been finally and retroactively changed by another judgment or administrative disposition. However, there is no doubt that the prosecutor's first does not legally binding force in the judgment subject to a retrial, and the prosecutor's next disposition of non-prosecution is not effective as the final judgment in the final judgment, and thus, the prosecution can be instituted at any time even after the expiration of the statute of limitations,

and the criminal case was prosecuted. Furthermore, the criminal case was prosecuted.

This is the same even if it is applicable.

Seoul High Court Decision 97Da5085 delivered on March 27, 1998