1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Facts which fall under any of the following subparagraphs are obvious or obvious in records to this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Seoul Northern District Court 2018Gadan8139) against the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court 2018Gadan8139). On November 13, 2018, the first instance court dismissed the lawsuit claiming the return of stock investment funds and rendered a judgment dismissing the claim for compensation for damages.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance as Seoul Northern District Court 2018Na3593. On July 4, 2019, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (Re-deliberation) and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s act of injury to the Plaintiff and the occurrence of damages therefrom, the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment on evidentiary materials, such as investigation records and medical records, and omitted the judgment on the medical records related to the loss of legacy in relation to the extinctive prescription, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The judgment subject to a retrial is inconsistent with a final and conclusive judgment rendered by the Supreme Court prior to extinctive prescription, and there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure

3. Determination

A. According to the proviso of Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the same Act, if a party asserts, or does not know, the grounds for a retrial by an appeal, a retrial cannot be instituted. Here, “when the party does not know of, or do not know, the grounds for a retrial” includes not only cases where an appeal was filed even though he/she knew that there was grounds for a retrial, but also cases where the judgment becomes final and conclusive as it was because he/she did not file

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da73540 Decided December 22, 2011). This part of the grounds for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff is based on the grounds for retrial.