1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant and plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts are remarkable or obvious in records in this court:

On September 9, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the rooftop bank located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment No. 902 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) seeking return of the rent equivalent to the overdue rent and the amount of damages equivalent to the enforcement fine imposed due to delay in delivery of the leased object, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Defendant seeking the return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement. The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s principal claim on April 30, 2015 and rendered a judgment citing KRW 5,313,761, which is a part of the Defendant’s counterclaim claim.

[Cheongju District Court Decision 2014Da19141, 2014Gadan21809 (Counterclaim)] The Plaintiff appealed against this and reduced the claim to the effect that the Plaintiff only seeks a return of overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the date of delivery, while filing an appeal, and the Plaintiff rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 27, 2016.

[Judgment on Retrial, Cheongju District Court 2015Na2158 (Main Office), 2015Na2165 (Counterclaim)] The Plaintiff again filed a final appeal against the said appellate judgment, but the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal on June 9, 2016, which became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive.

[Supreme Court Decision 2016Da13611, 2016Da13628 (Counterclaim)] 2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)8 of the same Act is “when documents and other articles used as evidence for a judgment subject to retrial were forged or altered,” although the document No. 8 (Receipt) was forged as evidence of the judgment subject to retrial, but the member prior to the retrial adopted and mistakenly determined it as evidence.”

B. The judgment subject to a retrial is Nonparty.