2. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the plaintiff.

A. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim with the Gwangju District Court 2013Kadan91, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 10, 2015, and the said judgment (hereinafter “original judgment”) became final and conclusive on February 28, 2015.

B. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a new trial against the Defendant with the Gwangju District Court 2015J group24, seeking the revocation of the original judgment and the payment of the money stated in the purport of the claim, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for new trial on July 3, 2015 (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed as the Gwangju District Court 2015Na7257, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 28, 2015, and the said judgment (hereinafter “the said judgment on review”) became final and conclusive on November 19, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial fact in this Court

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to a judgment subject to a retrial, since D, who represented the defendant's procedural acts in the Philippines, did not submit a letter of delegation of a lawsuit and conducted procedural acts without power of attorney.

B. Since the judgment subject to a retrial omitted a judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion on the defect of D’s power to represent the Defendant’s procedural act in the original judgment proceeding, the judgment subject to a retrial has grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act