The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for reexamination shall be borne by the plaintiff for reexamination (the plaintiff for interim confirmation).

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

1. As to the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act, the summary of the grounds for a retrial (the plaintiff, intermediary confirmation plaintiff, and the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") is that since the judgment subject to a retrial is inconsistent with the previous Supreme Court precedents, it constitutes a case where the previous Supreme Court precedents are modified without resorting to the full text, and therefore, there is a ground for retrial that did not constitute a judgment court pursuant to an Act under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure

However, Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da65180 Decided March 9, 2006, including Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65180 Decided March 9, 2006, asserted by the Plaintiff, are different from the case subject to a judgment, or related to matters not determined in the judgment subject to a judgment, and thus, cannot be deemed as

Therefore, this part of the grounds for retrial cannot be accepted.

2. As to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, there was a defect in the attorney’s power of attorney against Defendant E or other Defendants on the record.

Inasmuch as there is no circumstance to deem that there was a defect in the representative’s power, this part of the grounds for retrial cannot be accepted.

3. The phrase “when there is an omission of judgment on important matters that affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where a judgment is not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment concerning the method of attack and defense that affect the judgment submitted by the party in the lawsuit. As long as the judgment is made, the grounds leading to the judgment are not clearly stated or the grounds for rejecting the parties’ claims are individually.