1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

2. The expenses for retrial shall be those resulting from the intervention.

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are significant in this court:

① In the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Kadan201088, which filed against the Plaintiff, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 22, 2017, that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for construction works, and that the part of the construction works executed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment by the Defendant.

② Although the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 4, 2018 for the same reasons as the judgment of the first instance in the Daejeon District Court No. 2017Na107276.

③ Although the Plaintiff appealed against the appellate judgment, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal in the case No. 2018Da231598 on July 25, 2018, and the appellate judgment became final and conclusive.

④ On October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking retrial on the grounds that there was grounds for retrial against the appellate court’s ruling.

(2) On the other hand, the appellate court's judgment (hereinafter "the appellate court's judgment") 2. The defendant ordered the defendant's intervenor's intervenor's intervenor (hereinafter " intervenor") to give a contract for Egypt's room repair and typhoon damage restoration work, and the intervenor subcontracted the above construction work to F, but the plaintiff completed the remaining construction work by removing the subcontracted construction site without completing the subcontracted construction work.

② The Plaintiff completed the construction work under a new contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction cost for the part that the Plaintiff performed in light of the direction, supervision, and confirmation of construction specifications, etc. of K, which is the Defendant’s on-site supervisor.

③ However, in the first instance court, the above K had been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff performed the above construction, and the judgment subject to a retrial dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground of the above K’s perjury, etc.

4. Therefore, the judgment subject to review is.