The Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na107428 decided April 21, 201, and 2009Na107435 (Counterclaim) decided on April 21, 201.

1. According to the records, with respect to the case of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Review Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Review Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”), Seoul High Court 2008Na4706, 2008Na4713 (Counterclaim), the above court rendered a judgment that partly accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim and the Defendant’s claim for counterclaim on October 16, 2008. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant appealed against the above judgment, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s claim for counterclaim by 2008Da8927, 208Da89934, Nov. 12, 2009 (Counterclaim), and reversed the part against the Plaintiffs among the counterclaim, and remanded it to the Seoul High Court, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim by 309Na107428, Dec. 14, 2017 (Counterclaim Defendant’s counterclaim). Meanwhile, the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim by 2009Da31471, Dec. 14, 2017

2. The part concerning the grounds for retrial, among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court that rendered a judgment for retrial, and it is apparent that the part concerning the grounds for retrial of this case, among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, is not subject to the judgment of the Seoul High Court that rendered a judgment based on the assertion itself or the materials for lawsuit. Thus, it is reasonable to separate that the part should be transferred to the Seoul High Court that is the competent court, because it is not subject to the judgment of this court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Ja659 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). 3. The Defendant asserted that there exists a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, upon filing a petition for a retrial against Supreme Court Decision 2011Da37391, and 201Da37407 (Counterclaim).