1. The request for retrial is 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 exists a ground for retrial under Article 451 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (when there is a defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority necessary for a legal action) in the judgment subject to retrial, since there is no legitimate litigation by the defendant's litigation performer. Furthermore, the judgment of the court of first instance in the case subject to retrial only judged whether a judge has an unlawful and unjust judgment in a lawsuit claiming a return of deposit, and did not determine whether there was illegality or illegality of a judge in a lawsuit claiming a return of a building, and therefore, there was a ground for retrial under Article 451 subparagraph 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (the time of omission

According to the records, it is difficult to see that the defendant's litigation performer in a case subject to retrial had no right to perform the litigation in the case subject to retrial, and it is difficult to find any other data that there are grounds under Article 451 subparagraph 3 of the

In addition, the grounds for omission of judgment by the Plaintiff are not legitimate grounds for retrial, since the Plaintiff’s assertion itself does not constitute omission of judgment in the judgment subject to a retrial, and even if the first instance judgment of the case subject to a retrial was rendered, it is difficult to accept the allegation that there was grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judge of the lawsuit seeking the return of security deposit, and the judgment

Therefore, the retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.