1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

On February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Seoul Northern District Court 2015Da10272, which sought payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim, but the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered on August 12, 2015, and the Plaintiff appealed as the above court 2015Na5987, but the instant judgment subject to a retrial was pronounced to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 5, 2016.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed another appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2016Da37341, but was dismissed on December 1, 2016, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The summary of the cause of the request for retrial: ① the Plaintiff was made an unfair dismissal that is terminated by the Defendant’s unilateral declaration of intent; the judgment subject to retrial was judged differently; ② the Plaintiff’s workplace was not immediately contrary to the Plaintiff’s judgment; ② there was a dispute with the resident in the process of delivering the delivery of the delivery of the delivery of the selective distribution; and the Plaintiff demanded the director of the management office to pay the full amount of indemnity related to the loss of the selective distribution; and the Plaintiff strongly resisted the Plaintiff to refuse it; thus, the judgment subject to retrial constitutes grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted).

3. In light of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal asserted in the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court below was omitted, it can be seen if the original judgment was served on the original judgment and read the grounds of appeal. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it can be argued that there was omission in the judgment when the original judgment was served.