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

1. The Plaintiffs in the judgment subject to a retrial filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim by Seoul Western District Court 2013Gahap5916, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim on January 17, 2014. As to this, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal under this Court 2014Na12043, but this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ appeal and the preliminary claim added at the appellate court on August 21, 2015. The Plaintiffs re-appealed to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da55175), but the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by the final appeal was rendered on December 10, 2015 by the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da5175).

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The judgment subject to a retrial is not based on the evidence No. 32, but based on forged or altered site, reputation, and latitude. As such, there were errors by omitting any judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment, which constitutes grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, there are differences between the judgment subject to a retrial and the Seoul High Court 2010Na27894, which participated in the Seoul-Chuncheon Expressway Co., Ltd., and thus, there exist grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. 1) Inasmuch as a lawsuit for a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act is permitted only when there exist grounds stipulated in Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful if the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff for retrial do not constitute such grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996).