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, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants in Seoul Central District Court 2017 Ghana13092, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 19, 2017.

B. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2017Na56140, which was dissatisfied with the above judgment, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 12, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.

The Plaintiff appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da231390, but the final appeal was dismissed on July 12, 2018, and on July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff served the original copy of the judgment and became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the instant judgment subject to a retrial (this Court No. 2017Na56140) pertains to “F Software ownership and intellectual property rights,” and did not decide on the Plaintiff’s assertion “,” and thus, the instant judgment subject to a retrial has grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the existence of a ground for retrial

A. 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 for which the judgment of the court of final appeal was asserted in the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court below was omitted, it can be known if the original judgment was served with the original judgment, and unless there are any special circumstances, it can be known that there was omission in judgment when the original judgment was served with the original judgment, and thus, it could be asserted as the ground of appeal unless there are special circumstances.