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

purport, purport, ..

On November 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Incheon District Court Decision 2010Da30133, stating that “The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 16,130,00 after borrowing KRW 16,216,90 from the Plaintiff, and used the Plaintiff’s credit card equivalent to KRW 1,216,90, and did not pay usage fees of KRW 885,600, while using the Plaintiff’s name Handphones and did not pay usage fees of KRW 885,60,00 in relation to the criminal acts committed by the Plaintiff’s employees.” The Plaintiff was rendered a judgment in full favor of the first instance court on March 24, 2011.

B. On May 22, 2012, the Defendant lodged an appeal with the Incheon District Court 2012Na10935 through a subsequent appeal, and on February 7, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment that “the first instance judgment is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.”

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

On March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2013Da31465 Decided March 4, 2013, but the judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court became final and conclusive on September 12, 2013.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, although the Defendant borrowed a part of the amount from the Plaintiff while filing an appeal for subsequent completion, the Defendant stated that the loan alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged, the instant judgment subject to a retrial is merely an error and all of the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. As such, the instant judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment, which are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act."