1. All requests for retrial are dismissed;

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

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

The plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff") asserts that there are grounds for a retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment on important matters affecting the judgment is omitted), and Article 10 (when a judgment on retrial is contrary to a final judgment rendered before the judgment on retrial) of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, according to records, the judgment subject to a retrial is determined by the judgment of the court below, which is the ground for appeal by the plaintiffs, as to the establishment of land substitution under Article 47 of the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, and whether the plaintiffs suffered infringement of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution in the course of substitution of land, and no other material exists to deem that the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment as to the allegations

Therefore, there is no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

In addition, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are aimed at coordinating conflicts between the judgment subject to retrial and the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment different from that of a final and conclusive judgment. As such, “when a final and conclusive judgment prior to a final and conclusive judgment is contrary to a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to a final and conclusive judgment to the parties to the judgment subject to retrial” refers to cases where both judgments conflict with each other. Even if a final and conclusive judgment prior to a final and conclusive judgment pertains to a case similar

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Da1999, Jul. 21, 2011). However, the Plaintiffs did not state specific decisions as the grounds for the request for retrial, and even in light of the record, the Plaintiffs were the parties to the judgment subject to retrial.