1. The instant lawsuit was concluded by a judgment rendered on January 7, 2015.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the application for an additional judgment are filed.

1.The following facts of basic facts shall be apparent in the records or significant to this Court:

On March 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages on the grounds of the following arguments (Yanju District Court Decision 2007Gahap328), and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims.

Although the Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed (Seoul High Court 2008Na2660), the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 23, 2009 (this judgment is referred to as “the first judgment subject to a retrial”), and the Plaintiff appealed again (Supreme Court 2009Da94964), but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 11, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On December 22, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a club business agreement with B as to the operation of the instant aquaculture, and subsequently, the Plaintiff, who had been engaged in farming business prior to the transfer of 133,279m2,841m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), transferred all of the house fixtures and facilities of the aquaculture from the I, etc., which had been engaged in farming business prior to the transfer of 172,841m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On December 22, 2004, the Plaintiff, who had been supplied with lue fish and feed by J (K’s representative), intended to ship lue lue by being supplied with lue fish and feed, etc.

2. On March 8, 2004, B, C, and D (hereinafter “B, etc.”) entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for State-owned property (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) by setting the loan period for the instant land from March 8, 2004 to March 7, 2009. On September 1, 2004, the Defendant filed a report on cultivation of land (hereinafter “the instant report on cultivation of fish, fish, and other marine animals and plants) with the Defendant on the ground that the instant loan agreement was terminated on the ground that the Defendant’s pure public-private partnership project could not be deemed a public-private partnership project, and the public-private partnership officials in charge of the Defendant’s side concluded the instant loan agreement for State-owned property (hereinafter “instant loan”).