2. The costs of retrial shall be paid.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Seoul Central District Court No. 2012Gahap65992, and Plaintiff DL’s father, Plaintiff DL’s father, and Plaintiff DM’s father, claimed that the National Report Federation members, etc., who were residing in Socheon-gun, were the victims of women’s drinking water and women’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s drinking-gun’s Master’s Report System at the time of the Korean War, and sought payment of consolation money and damages for delay as their bereaved family members. On April 22, 201

B. On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs appealed from this Court No. 2014Na2015840, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing all appeals by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the judgment subject to review and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da210569, but the Supreme Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ appeals on July 9, 2015 pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Procedure for Appeal of Supreme Court.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that although the fact that the net AC made a sacrifice for a national reporting franchise case can be sufficiently confirmed by relevant evidence, such as the network AC's fraudulent statements, the conclusion that the decision subject to a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages is unfair by determining otherwise.

3. A lawsuit for retrial on a final judgment that became final and conclusive is permitted only when there exist grounds for retrial stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the grounds for a retrial do not constitute such grounds, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996). However, the content of the plaintiffs' assertion is just one.