1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are significant in this court, or there is no dispute between the parties.

On September 8, 2009, the first instance court of Jeonju District Court, the first instance court of the case brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on September 8, 2009.

B. On June 15, 2010, the appellate court rendered a judgment for review that dismissed both the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s claim extended in the appellate court on June 15, 2010, which was the Jeonju District Court Decision 2009Na6137, and the original judgment was served on the Plaintiff on June 29, 2010.

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial. In Supreme Court Decision 2010Da57367 Decided September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff’s final appeal against the Defendant was dismissed on September 30, 2010, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The plaintiff's assertion about the grounds for retrial and the judgment on them

A. The plaintiff asserts that there exists a ground for a retrial omitting judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. 1) According to the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a party cannot bring a lawsuit for retrial on the ground that the grounds that the party asserted or did not have asserted by an appeal cannot again bring a lawsuit for retrial. Thus, even in cases where the party brought a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds falling under any subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if the party had already asserted such grounds in the appellate trial as to the judgment subject to retrial or had not knowingly asserted such grounds, it shall be deemed that the party asserts that it does not constitute the grounds for retrial, and the lawsuit for retrial shall be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da39553, Nov. 9, 193; 91Da29057, Nov. 12, 1991; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da29057, Nov. 12,