1. Of the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part on grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act is excluded.

1. The following facts which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review are significant or clearly recorded in this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the delivery of the instant building and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant building at the court 2013da242348 (principal lawsuit). The Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the return of the lease deposit with the court 2014da38546 (Counterclaim).

On November 17, 2014, the above court rendered a judgment to accept only a part of a claim for extradition and a counterclaim among the main lawsuit and to dismiss all the rest of the main lawsuit and counterclaim claims.

B. On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant court as a counterclaim (the principal lawsuit), and the said court dismissed the appeal against the principal lawsuit. On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff issued an order to pay KRW 35 million to the Defendant and issued an order to dismiss the remainder of the counterclaim.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da45925 (principal lawsuit), 2015Da45932 (Counterclaim), but the judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court dismissed on October 20, 2015 became final and conclusive on October 20, 2015.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The lease contract (Evidence No. 1) as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is forged or altered, and the statement of Q as evidence of the written testimony (Evidence No. 7) is a false statement.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. A decision subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act was not rendered with regard to various matters, including whether the Defendant is a tenant with opposing power and preferential right to payment in the auction procedure, the scope and size of the Plaintiff’s share, and the fact that the lease contract was forged or altered, and that the obligation to explain was not fulfilled.

Therefore, Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to the judgment subject to review.