1. Of the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part on grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act is excluded.

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant and B (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “B”) with the Suwon District Court Branch No. 2014Kadan4826.

B filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff, which claimed manufacturing cost, etc. from the Suwon District Court 2015dan6058.

B. On July 9, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the counterclaim claim B.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the above judgment of the first instance court as Suwon District Court 2015Na26259 (main office). During the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff withdrawn the main office against B during the said lawsuit, and added claims for damages against the Defendant for nonperformance of the duty to produce and supply the Doless cut machines, and reduced the amount of claims for damages due to nonperformance of the duty to repair defects.

(B) The counterclaim has become final and conclusive because it did not appeal to the judgment of the first instance court, and the Supreme Court has also given the opposing case number. (D)

On April 6, 2016, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing all the plaintiff's appeal and extended claim (hereinafter "the judgment on review").

E. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2016Da18432 (principal suit), 2016Da18449 (Counterclaim), and the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 14, 2016 by a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 20, 2016.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the judgment subject to a retrial was convicted in a criminal trial by forging evidence Nos. 1 through 3, for which the judgment subject to a retrial was indicated as evidence, and thus, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the defendant received the judgment subject to a retrial by means of the above forged documents, and the judgment subject to a retrial is based on the scope of acceptance that is borne by the protocol of mediation.