2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da5539284, which sought “15,00,000 won and the payment of damages for delay from December 27, 2012,” and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on January 15, 2015, ordering “15,000,000 won and the payment of damages for delay from May 31, 2014.”

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2015Na10867, and the said appellate court revoked the first instance judgment on January 27, 2016, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

(Re-deliberation Decision).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da210764 Decided June 23, 2016. However, the above Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 23, 2016, which became final and conclusive on the same day.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a retrial suit

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3, 4, 8, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, since it is evident that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,00 to the Defendant.

B. Determination 1) Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority necessary to conduct procedural acts,” which is grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for retrial refer to cases where an unauthorized representative acts as an attorney without authority and actually conducted procedural acts for the principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da259, Dec. 22, 1992). The Plaintiff does not specifically assert substantial procedural acts by an unauthorized representative.