1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the new argument made by the defendant in the trial at the court of first instance to the following: therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment at the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of

2. Determination on new arguments in the trial

A. In violation of Articles 27(1), 37(2), and 103 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Articles 122 and 123 of the Criminal Act, Articles 199 and 207 of the Civil Procedure Act, the presiding judge of the judgment of the court of first instance declared the judgment of the court of first instance by abusing the judge’s right to command litigation and neglecting his duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court should be revoked.

B. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the presiding judge of the first instance court rendered a judgment of the first instance by abusing official authority and maintaining duties as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judge who has participated in a trial of a judgment subject to a retrial has committed a crime of abandonment of his/her duties, and this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act, if a judge who has participated in a trial commits a crime relating to his/her duties, he/she may file a lawsuit for retrial on the final judgment which became final and conclusive, when the judge who has participated in the trial of a judgment subject to a retrial commits a crime relating to the said case (Article 451(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, even in the above cases, a lawsuit for retrial may be brought only when a judgment of conviction, a judgment of conviction of a fine for negligence, or a final and conclusive judgment of a fine for negligence is impossible due to a lack of evidence (Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge