1. All applications for quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The defendant (hereinafter "the defendant") asserts that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendant (the "the defendant") rejected the application for witness on September 23, 2015 and the application for examination of evidence on September 30, 2016, which are important matters that may affect the instant court's decision subject to quasi-examination, which is the main text of the decision subject to quasi-examination, by an implied method that did not make any decision.

2. Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In cases where a ruling or order, which is entitled to appeal against a protocol or an immediate appeal under Article 220, has become final and conclusive, a retrial may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 451 through 460 of the final and conclusive judgment, if there exist grounds as provided in Article 451(1).” Here, limiting the subject matter of quasi-adjudication to “a ruling or order, which is entitled to appeal” is merely a representative case. In addition, in cases where the subject matter of quasi-adjudication is an independent final and conclusive ruling or order, regardless of the final and conclusive judgment, an independent application for quasi-adjudication may be filed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Ma660, Sept. 13, 2004). However, in a case involving a witness application filed by the Defendant on Sept. 23, 2015 and a ruling of evidence on Sept. 30, 2016 as to a request for examination of evidence, a trial on an ordinary litigation direction, which is alleged by the Defendant, does not have any way to object to an immediate appeal in accordance with the provisions of law (see Article 138 of the Civil Procedure Act), and even if an independent objection is not permitted, the legitimacy thereof may be contested through the appellate trial of the merits. Thus, the ruling or order independently finalized regardless of the nature of the final judgment, does not constitute an order or final judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's motion for the examination of evidence and the motion for the examination of evidence are rejected.