The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, the purport of the grounds for retrial by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the Supreme Court did not indicate the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal submitted by the Plaintiff and did not submit the appellate brief within the statutory period, on the premise that the Plaintiff was not served with the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records, even in a case subject to retrial.

Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a recipient of service has not been present at the place of service other than his/her place of service, documents may be delivered to his/her clerk, employee, or cohabitant (hereinafter referred to as “a person living together, etc.”) who is man of sense of judgment.

Service shall be effective even if a document to be served is served on a person living together with the person to be served and his/her cohabitant, etc. has an intelligence to make reasonable judgment, and a person to be served was not actually aware of the content of the document.

(2) According to the records, the Plaintiff entered the address in the petition of appeal as “Ulsan Jung-gu E, 406.” On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court’s notification of the receipt of the trial record was received by F, who is a person living together with the Plaintiff at the same place as the Plaintiff at the same time on January 15, 2016. Furthermore, the Plaintiff entered the place immediately after filing an appeal and entered the place as the place where the appeal was filed, and the G, who directly received a certified copy of the petition of appeal at the same place on May 15, 2014, sent a certified copy of the order of correction on May 30, 2014. On the other hand, there is insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that F was not a person living together with the Plaintiff.

3.2