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

purport, purport, ..

On December 3, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Chuncheon District Court for a payment order against C seeking “The payment of lease deposit of KRW 50 million and damages for delay on the ground that the lease contract for the building located D in Chungcheongnam-si has been terminated.” On December 6, 2010, the Plaintiff received a payment order from the said court.

(Court 2010 No. 2834). b)

C The deceased on December 4, 2010, and the Defendants, the heir of the deceased C, raised an objection against the payment order and implemented it as a lawsuit. On May 25, 2011, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

(Court 201No. 77).

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on December 9, 201, which became final and conclusive on January 3, 2012.

(2) On February, 2011Na2382, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s ground for retrial was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6, 7, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff submitted a false statement or a false statement of witness as evidence, ② even though the Plaintiff submitted a business registration certificate, a lease agreement, etc. that received a fixed date to prove that he/she had opposing power and preferential right to reimbursement under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiff did not make a decision on important matters that may affect the judgment.

(Plaintiff asserted that there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the preparatory document dated March 21, 2018, but in light of its content, it appears that the Plaintiff was a clerical error in the “Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.”3.

A. Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the reasons under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the same Act