1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records:

On July 9, 2010, the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Da15329 (principal lawsuit), 2009Gadan27490 (Counterclaim) rendered a judgment of the first instance that partially accepted the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim claim.

B. On November 25, 2010, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed to the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju), 2010Na1440 (Cheongju), and (Cheongju), 2010Na1457 (Counterclaim). On November 25, 2010, the said court rendered a decision that the part of winning the Defendant regarding the damages for delay in the judgment of the first instance should be revoked, and that both appeals shall be dismissed (hereinafter “previous appellate judgment”).

Supreme Court Decision 2010Da106016, 2010Da106023 (Counterclaim), however, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on February 10, 2011, and the judgment of the said appellate court became final and conclusive.

C. On the previous appellate judgment, the Defendant filed a new trial against the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju), 2018 (Cheongju), 14 (Cheongju), 2018 (Cheongju), or 2018 (Cheongju) (Counterclaim). The said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s respective grounds for a new trial on the ground that each of the grounds for a new trial by the Defendant is unlawful (hereinafter “the subject judgment

Therefore, although the Defendant appealed on May 14, 2019, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the dismissal order [Supreme Court Decision 2018Da40112, 2018Da40129, Counterclaim].

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

A. Although the plaintiff alleged by the defendant had a duty to pay KRW 492,918,570 to the defendant as compensation for damages, the previous appellate court rendered a ruling that the defendant would pay KRW 13,303,023, and even though the defendant requested a new trial, the appellate court rejected the judgment.

The judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when it is contrary to a final judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a retrial.”