1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

On May 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for the claim for construction cost as the Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2009Gahap1521, and the said court rendered a judgment that partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on February 16, 2011, that “the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 534,730,558 and its delay damages.”

B. The Defendants were dissatisfied with the above judgment of the first instance court and filed an appeal with the Busan High Court (original District Court) 201Na1289. On August 29, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment to the effect that “Defendant C, D, E, F, and G Co., Ltd shall pay jointly and severally to the Plaintiff KRW 477,100 and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s rehabilitation claim against the Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall be KRW 477,100 and the damages for delay thereof shall be determined (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).”

C. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff served an original copy of the instant judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da74851, but the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the instant judgment due to the lower court’s rejection of the judgment due to trial failure on December 26, 2013.

Defendant B, on April 22, 2011, was decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings by Changwon District Court 2011 Gohap13, and the O appointed by the above court as the administrator of the above Defendant took over the instant lawsuit at the appellate court. On September 23, 2013, the above Defendant again taken over the instant lawsuit.

E. On September 5, 2013, Defendant C received a decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure by the Changwon District Court 2013dan23, and C, who was appointed as the custodian of the above Defendant in the final appeal, took over the instant lawsuit at the final appeal court, but Defendant C again took over the instant lawsuit on December 9, 2014 upon the completion of the said rehabilitation procedure.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion.