The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

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

A new trial shall be deemed to have been made.

The plaintiff (the plaintiff) asserts that the dismissal of the appeal by deeming that the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes a ground for continuation of a trial, despite the error of omitting a judgment on important matters that could affect the judgment of the judgment subject to a retrial, constitutes a ground for reexamination under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the above argument is not a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial, but a mistake that constitutes a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial is nothing more than that of the judgment of the court below, thereby not leading to further review.

Therefore, the litigation of this case is an incidental law.

Even if the above argument is related to a judgment subject to a retrial, it is no longer deemed that the argument on the grounds for a final appeal constitutes a ground for continuation of the trial as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the judgment dismissing the final appeal without further deliberation, and there is no omission of judgment as to the grounds for a final appeal. Therefore, this cannot be viewed as a ground for further review under Article 451 (1) 9

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008ReDa502 Decided February 12, 2009, etc.). Therefore, the lawsuit for retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.