1. Grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3, 5, 9, and 11 of the Civil Procedure Act among the lawsuits for retrial of this case

1. The lower court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on May 4, 2011, which rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on the claim for damages against the Defendant by the Incheon District Court 2010Da324961, and the said court appealed by the Defendant as the Incheon District Court 201Na8874, but the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing all the Defendant’s appeal on May 31, 2012 (hereinafter “the final judgment on retrial”) and the appellate court appealed by the Supreme Court 2012Da58494 Decided September 13, 2012, but the Supreme Court appealed by the Defendant’s second appeal by the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court 2012Da58494, which was all dismissed by the Defendant’s final appeal on September 13, 2012, which became final and conclusive as of

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation of the retrial of this case and on the existence of grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3, 5, 9, 10, and 11 of the Civil Procedure Act are asserted. The contents are as follows.

① In the process of the first instance trial, Plaintiff A was an attorney of Plaintiff B without the authorization of Plaintiff B, which constitutes grounds for retrial under subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph.

② The appellate court failed to submit the outcome of the appellate court’s judgment in the relevant criminal cases, which constituted a defense method affecting the judgment in the course of the appellate court’s litigation, before the appellate court’s judgment on the relevant criminal cases against the defendant was rendered. This constitutes grounds for retrial under subparagraph 5 of the same paragraph.

③ Although there was no illegal act or criminal offense against Plaintiff B, the Defendant recognized Plaintiff B’s claim for consolation money without making a judgment on such act. This constitutes grounds for retrial under subparagraph 9 of the same paragraph.

④ Cases of “violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.” among criminal cases against the Defendant.