1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of filing an application shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff).

1. Part of an order to correct recognition issued on August 8, 2013

A. An order of the presiding judge to correct a stamp concerning a complaint or a petition of appeal does not fall under “a ruling or order dismissing a petition for a litigation procedure” under Article 439 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is generally subject to appeal, and there is no separate provision stipulating that an appeal may be filed, and no objection or appeal may be filed against such order.

(Supreme Court Order 2012G46 Dated March 27, 2012). (B)

Therefore, inasmuch as an order to supplement recognition of August 8, 2013 is merely an act of proceeding direction by the presiding judge, and does not constitute “a case where a ruling or order to be dissatisfied with an immediate appeal becomes final and conclusive” (Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act), an application for quasi-deliberation of the said order filed by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Plaintiff and Plaintiff hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is unlawful.

2. The part of the order to dismiss the complaint on September 25, 2013

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion in the Busan High Court (Chowon), Busan High Court (Chowon), 2012,100,100 won, and the amount of recognition is limited to KRW 654,00,00. However, the presiding judge issued an order of correction on August 8, 2013, “A correction of KRW 875,800,” and dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition of reexamination on September 25, 2013 based on the above order of correction. As such, the above order of rejection of a written complaint is unlawful.

(Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Judgment

1. According to the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial shall not be instituted when the parties have asserted the grounds by an appeal or have failed to know the grounds therefor. The time when they did not know the existence of the grounds for retrial in the above provision refers to not only the case where the parties have filed an appeal despite the knowledge of the existence of the grounds for retrial, but also the case where the judgment became final and conclusive because they did not file an appeal, and the grounds for retrial, such as the rejection of the judgment, are read.