The request for retrial is dismissed.

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

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

The gist of the grounds for the retrial of this case lies in the purport that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s ground for appeal on the ground that it does not fall under any of the grounds provided for in each subparagraph of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment is omitted” refers to cases where a party’s attack and defense means an attack and defense that have been submitted in a lawsuit and does not specify the judgment in the reasoning of the judgment. As long as a judgment has been rendered, even if the grounds leading to the judgment are not sufficiently explained or the grounds for rejecting a party’s assertion are not individually explained, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment as referred to in the above provision. Thus, the grounds for appeal dismissing an appeal on the grounds that the grounds for appeal do not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which is dismissed

(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 failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.