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

The Plaintiff, while serving as the head of international financial division of C (hereinafter “C”) in the past, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages against the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff and C did not notify or explain important matters under an employment contract between the Plaintiff and C. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the instant lawsuit on May 18, 2012 on the ground that “the Plaintiff abused its right in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.”

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and thereafter extended the purport of the claim in the appellate court (this Court No. 2012Na25585), and added the claim for damages under Article 26 of the former Labor Standards Act in preliminary order. However, the said appellate court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff’s appeal and the appellate court dismissed all the claims extended and added in the appellate court on August 28, 2014, and the said appellate court’s judgment became final and conclusive on October 2, 2014, on the grounds that all the original Defendant did not appeal.

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

After that, on October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The full bench that declared the judgment subject to a retrial did not cease proceedings even if the Plaintiff filed a motion for challenge, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff’s motion and rendered a judgment subject to a retrial. This is because the full bench committed abuse of authority in violation of Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act in connection with its duties. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 of

② At the first instance court, N, the Defendant’s legal representative, only submitted a letter of delegation of lawsuit with the Defendant’s seal affixed thereto, and did not receive the authority required for conducting the procedural acts from the Defendant.