2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

A. On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the designated parties seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the part of the lower court’s order on the return of unjust enrichment (hereinafter “the first instance court’s decision”) and Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na14144 decided October 24, 2012 (hereinafter “the appellate court’s decision on the return of unjust enrichment”).

B. On October 16, 2015, as indicated in the order of the judgment subject to a retrial, this court dismissed each part of the judgment of the first instance on the appeal of this case against the designated parties B, C, D, and E, and the Defendant and the appointed parties F, and rejected compulsory execution based on the judgment of the court of first instance on the case of return of unjust enrichment, and rejected compulsory execution against the designated parties F, based on the judgment of the appellate court on the case of return of unjust enrichment, and rejected compulsory execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in excess of KRW 1,991,898, based on the judgment of the appellate court on the case of return of unjust enrichment, and sentenced the Defendant to a judgment subject to a retrial, such as dismissing the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant. Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on November 10, 2015

[Reasons for Recognition] An obvious fact in the record, No. 1-A of the decision subject to a retrial on the part of the Appellant B, C, D, and E’s request for retrial, which is obvious to this court.

B, C, D, and E among the lawsuits of objection to the instant claim, were dismissed. While four of the aforementioned designated parties did not cancel the appointment of the designated parties, the Defendant filed the instant petition for retrial seeking the cancellation of paragraphs 2 through 6 of the text of the judgment subject to retrial and the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the part constituting four of the said designated parties among the judgment subject to retrial constitutes the instant petition for retrial.