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

purport, purport, ..

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, C, and D seeking reimbursement of the amount of KRW 50 million against the joint issuer of the bill, and KRW 800,000,000 against D, by means of service by public notice, with the Ulsan District Court Decision 2008Da5478, Ulsan District Court Decision 2008Da5478, and with respect to the Defendant and C, 80,000 won against the joint issuer of the bill, and with respect to D, the said lawsuit was pending by

B. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant and C appealed against the above judgment and filed a subsequent appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2013Na7110. During the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff changed the cause of the claim that the Plaintiff seeks to pay the amount equivalent to the claim in accordance with the underlying relationship for the issuance of the Promissory Notes. On December 24, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment changing the judgment of the first instance to the effect that “the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 26.9 million to the Plaintiff, and both the Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the Defendant and claims against C are dismissed” (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to review”).

C. On January 12, 2015, the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court on the judgment subject to a retrial. However, the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s final appeal on May 14, 2015, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as is.

2. Whether the lawsuit for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) Even though the Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, the judgment subject to a retrial was determined by the Defendant to have borrowed money from the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, the claim for the above loan was extinguished by the lapse of the extinctive prescription period. However, the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment on extinctive prescription

3) There are grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, which is determined as stated in the foregoing paragraphs (1) and (2). B. There are no grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)