1. All of the lawsuits filed by the plaintiff (the plaintiff for retrial) on the retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. Reopening of procedure.

1. Re-examination of the legitimacy of a suit for re-adjudication on the grounds of Articles 2 through 4, 6, and 11 of the purport of the request for retrial is a method of filing an appeal seeking revocation of the judgment in the form of a suit on the grounds that there are serious defects in the judgment procedure or litigation materials regarding the final judgment which became final and conclusive, and restoring the litigation to the state before the judgment was rendered,

However, Articles 2 through 4, 6, and 11 of the purport of the request for retrial are not the claim on the final judgment, and thus it is not the subject of retrial. Therefore, each of the above legal actions is unlawful

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial under paragraphs (1) and (5) is legitimate;

A. According to the records of this case and significant facts in this court, the following facts may be recognized:

1) On September 9, 2004, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff and the Defendant for reexamination in this Court, and the Defendant was the Non-Net Construction Co., Ltd. (this Court Decision 2004Da110256, hereinafter “instant contract deposit case”).

2) On September 14, 2005, on the date of conciliation opened on September 14, 2005, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were present, and the Defendant was not present. On September 14, 2005, this Court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation decision”) to the effect that “(i) the Plaintiff and the Defendant making a request for provisional attachment against claims of the Ulsan District Court 2004Kadan11384, U.S. District Court 2004. ② The Defendant shall pay KRW 23 million to the Plaintiff and the Defendant making a request for provisional attachment against the said provisional attachment. (ii) The Plaintiff and the Defendant making a decision in lieu of conciliation (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation decision”).

3) The instant compulsory adjustment decision was served on September 21, 2005 on the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and on September 26, 2005, on which both parties did not file an objection within two weeks thereafter, and the instant compulsory adjustment decision became final and conclusive on October 11, 2005. 4) The Plaintiff for reexamination on September 17, 2015.