1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Plaintiff for retrial).

1. On May 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a counterclaim against the Defendant for damages by the Ulsan District Court 2014Gaso35986, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff by the Ulsan District Court 2014Gaso37593, and the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim by accepting a part of the Plaintiff’s claim on the part of the Plaintiff’s main claim and dismissing the Defendant’s counterclaim.

Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2015Na21219 (principal lawsuit), 2015Na2126 (Counterclaim), but the above court rendered a ruling dismissing all appeals against the defendant's principal lawsuit and counterclaim on November 30, 2016 (hereinafter "the ruling on review").

In other words, the Defendant filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2016Da276948, 2016Da276955 (Counterclaim), but the judgment subject to a final judgment was dismissed, which became final and conclusive on April 3, 2017.

2. Inasmuch as a lawsuit on a retrial on the final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive as to the lawfulness of the lawsuit in this case is permitted only where there exist grounds stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the lawsuit on retrial is unlawful where the

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Da14 delivered on September 14, 1982, etc.). However, the main purport of the Defendant’s assertion is to mislead the determination of the judgment subject to a retrial, which does not constitute grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.