1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff and the selected party).

1. On September 2, 2016, the court ordered the Plaintiff to deposit KRW 1,432,800 within seven days from the date of receiving ex officio notice of the decision to provide security pursuant to Articles 117(2) and 120(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, deeming that the provision of security for the litigation costs of this case is necessary.

However, since the plaintiff did not deposit the above secured amount within the above period, the plaintiff's lawsuit for retrial of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the power of lawsuit is abused;

A. Furthermore, the following facts are apparent in relation to the process of filing the instant lawsuit for retrial.

1) On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff’s instant case No. 2014Na2038546 of this Court (hereinafter “instant case”).

After having been sentenced to a judgment against the Plaintiff, on February 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for further review on the grounds of the omission of the judgment in the initial case and the dismissal decision on the initial application for verification of the case. 2) Meanwhile, on March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for further review as to the initial case under this Court 2015Na205.

On March 31, 2015, this Court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the stamp and service fee for the litigation for retrial, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the order, and dismissed the said complaint on April 9, 2015.

3) On May 21, 2015, this Court rendered a declaration of the termination of litigation that the initial case was terminated by a sentence on February 12, 2015 regarding the application for an additional trial as set forth in the foregoing paragraph 1.

On June 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on June 7, 2015, and on July 8, 2015 and July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an additional trial party and a preliminary appeal on each initial case and each preliminary appeal.

4) On July 20, 2015, the instant court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the stamp and service charge for the said Additional Trial Party and the conjunctive Appeal Party, but did not comply therewith, and dismissed the instant appeal on August 5, 2015. (5) On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the instant appeal.