1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

The plaintiff asserts that there are grounds for a retrial for omission of judgment under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

The proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a party may not file a lawsuit for retrial if he/she has asserted a ground for retrial by an appeal or fails to know it, and the party should be deemed to have known when he/she was served the original copy of the judgment whether there exists a ground for retrial omitted in a judgment.

According to the records, while the plaintiff appealed on December 2, 201, the original copy of the judgment subject to review was served, and on February 23, 2012, it can be recognized that the appeal was dismissed on February 23, 2012. As such, the case where the plaintiff served the original copy of the judgment subject to review and filed a final appeal as the above recognized facts constitutes “when the grounds for retrial were asserted or did not know it, by means of an appeal,” and the plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit for retrial.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is so decided as per Disposition.