1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the lawsuits for retrial based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act are instituted.

1. Two grounds for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff in this case are as follows.

Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The actual benefits during the period of dismissal of the Plaintiff are KRW 160 million,000,000,000,000,000”, the first instance court of the Seoul Central District Court, 2003Gahap7420, which was the first instance court of the judgment subject to a retrial, testified by C to deny it, and the testimony was used as evidence in the judgment subject to a retrial. After that, the Seoul Western District Court 201Gahap13371 case (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”)

B. The judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act was modified by deeming the Plaintiff’s actual benefits during the period of dismissal to be “1.6 million won” in the Seoul Western District Court Decision 201Gahap13371, supra.

2. Whether the lawsuit for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. As to whether the Defendant complied with the period for filing a retrial based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant brought a lawsuit for retrial within 30 days from September 1, 2014, on which the appellate court’s judgment of the instant case was served on the Plaintiff, and that the period for filing a retrial has expired since the Defendant did not dispute the fact that “the actual benefits during the period of dismissal of the Plaintiff were KRW 160 million” in the Seoul Western District Court Decision 201Gahap1371 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant damages claim”), which was alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff had known of the grounds. However, the Plaintiff had filed a lawsuit for retrial within 30 days from September 1, 2014, which was served on the Plaintiff.

The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction against a false statement is finalized, or a final judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence.

However, according to the statement of No. 4, C's testimony, which the plaintiff claims as perjury, was made on December 17, 2004.