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. Finality of the judgment subject to review

A. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking consolation money against the Defendant (this Court 2016da52076555). On May 3, 2017, the Defendant also filed a counterclaim claiming consolation money against the Plaintiffs (this Court 2017da509079).

On October 16, 2017, the judgment of the court of first instance, which partially accepted the plaintiffs' main claim and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

B. On June 15, 2018, the Defendant appealed against it (this Court Decision 2018Na4658, 2018Na4665 (Counterclaim), and the Defendant’s appeal was declared subject to a retrial that dismissed.

C. The Defendant’s final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2018Da249582, and 2018Da249599 (Counterclaim) was dismissed, which became final and conclusive on October 20, 2018.

2. Defendant’s assertion on the grounds for retrial

A. Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides evidence for the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)5(s) of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes evidence of an intentional omission and deletion of any unfavorable part against the Plaintiffs, and the judgment subject to retrial was based on the Plaintiffs’ false statement. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject

B. As the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act omitted a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

① The illegality of the Defendant’s inventory lawsuit: (a) whether the Plaintiffs suffered substantial damage in relation to the Defendant’s filing of a complaint against the Plaintiffs on or around January 2017 to May 2017; and (b) whether the Defendant received a decision of non-guilty suspicion in relation to the filing of a complaint around April 2016; and (c) whether the Defendant received a decision of non-guilty suspicion as to the filing of a complaint around April 2016 and around May 2017; and (b) whether the Defendant issued an investigation direction as to the filing of the complaint; and (c) the