2. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the Defendant (Plaintiffs and Counterclaims).

A. According to Article 8(2) of the agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on embezzlement or loss of ready-mixed containers, stating that “A (the Defendant in the instant case) shall deduct the materials provided by the Defendant to B (the Plaintiff in the instant case) from the progress payment to be paid to B in the event of the destruction or loss of materials and official tools, etc.

However, the amount of ready-mixed supplied by the Plaintiff in the construction project is 125 square meters or 125 square meters and the amount of ready-mixed measured as having been actually used, resulting in the loss of 23.4 square meters.

Therefore, the defendant filed a complaint with the plaintiff as embezzlement and the disposition of non-prosecution was made and the defendant's appeal is now in progress as the Jeju High Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2019 High Military Prosecutor's Office No.

Since it is lost even if it is not embezzled, it shall be deducted from the progress payment.

B. The representative G of the Plaintiff’s representative director G was sentenced to a fine of 400,000 won for the crime of interference with business by obstructing construction by preventing construction from causing the Defendant’s failure to pay the construction cost and piling up construction materials and preventing the construction site.

(No. 2016 High Court Decision 251). In the absence of the Plaintiff’s business obstruction, the Defendant completed the building up until August 2, 2015 and could normally be used, and thus, the amount of KRW 5,127,31 should be recognized as equivalent to the land rent and the building rent.

C. The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to “when a civil or criminal judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, was altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition.”

However, among evidential materials used in the judgment subject to a retrial, there was no judgment, trial, or administrative disposition on the plaintiff's embezzlement or interference with business affairs.

Moreover, the plaintiff's business obstruction case against G representative director became final and conclusive.

Therefore, Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act is amended.