2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, and.

A. On May 10, 2013, the Suwon District Court rendered a provisional seizure order against the Defendant regarding KRW 1,237,378,866 of the advance payment return claim against the Defendant as KRW 1,237,378,866, and the provisional seizure order was issued against the Defendant on April 29, 2015, with KRW 2015,65410 (hereinafter “case subject to review”), on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s provisional seizure order was transferred to the Defendant on May 10, 2013, pursuant to the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court Decision 2013Kadan15177, the Plaintiff additionally received the provisional seizure order against the Defendant on the ground that: (a) KRW 1,629,823,936; and (b) KRW 36,206,376,3786,47,296,3767,296,279,27636, and damages for delay in advance payment claim against the Defendant.”

B. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant did not submit a written response in a case subject to reexamination, and the said court rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 237,264,210 won and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 15, 2015 to September 17, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment subject to reexamination”).

On October 17, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 17, 2015 because the defendant did not appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Cleared Facts in the record, which are obvious to this court

2. Determination as to the existence or absence of a ground for retrial, the Defendant’s claim for refund of advance payment against an advanced Defendant of the company, in the case subject to retrial on April 30, 2013, which was already settled and extinguished on April 30, 2013, prior to the provisional seizure order of claim 2013Kadan1517, 2013.