1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed.

2.

The following facts are apparent or apparent to this court in the judgment subject to a retrial.

On December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff and B filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the down payment, intermediate payment, penalty, and development cost against the Defendant by asserting that “The 6th unit of the 4th floor of the 6th underground and the 18th floor E of the 18th floor above the 3rd building of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul and the 3rd building (hereinafter “instant building”) was sold in lots, but the sales contract and the development cost agreement were rescinded or revoked.”

In the above lawsuit, the first instance court dismissed all the claims of the plaintiff and B on November 29, 2007.

B. In response to the Plaintiff’s objection, the Plaintiff appointed Z and AA as a legal representative and appealed by this Court as 2008Na2656, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 12, 2009. The Plaintiff’s legal representative was served on May 20, 2009 the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial.

C. On August 2009, the original copy of the judgment dated August 20, 2009, which dismissed the final appeal, was served on the Plaintiff on August 31, 2009, and thus became final and conclusive by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion of Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act regarding the legality of a suit for retrial, the Plaintiff’s assertion made a false statement in the litigation procedure of the case subject to retrial that “the development cost was returned to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) which is the development company, and the development cost was used for its original purpose, such as public relations costs.”

In addition, the defendant argued in the above litigation procedure that "the former part of the sale price or profit list is prepared by the selling agency as reference material for internal use regardless of the defendant at the preparation stage for sale."

This is because the false statement by a party or legal representative becomes evidence of the judgment, Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.