The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

The gist of the grounds for the request for retrial of this case is that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, which dismissed the appeal on the ground that the grounds alleged by the defendant (the plaintiff for review) do not fall under any of the grounds provided for in the subparagraphs of Article 3

However, “when a judgment on important matters affecting a judgment is omitted” as a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to where a party’s attack and defense means an attack and defense that have been presented in a lawsuit and has an influence on the judgment, and as long as a judgment has been rendered, even if the grounds leading to such judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting a party’s assertion are not individually explained, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment under the above provision. Thus, as long as an appeal is dismissed on the ground that the grounds for appeal alleged in the ground for retrial do not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, it cannot be said that there is omission of judgment

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the filing of a request for retrial, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the losing party.