1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking compensation for damages due to defamation with the Ulsan District Court 2014Ga7400, and the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 25, 2014.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2014Na8349, but this Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the ruling on review”).

As the Plaintiff did not appeal against this, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on January 23, 2016.

2. Reopening of procedure against a final judgment rendered final and conclusive as to a request for retrial is permissible only where there exist grounds stipulated in the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, where the ground alleged by the Plaintiff for retrial does not constitute

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Da14 delivered on September 14, 1982, etc.). However, the main purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to mislead the determination of the judgment subject to a retrial, which does not constitute grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.