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

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

Before the Seoul High Court 2012Na48963 case, the above court asserts that there is a ground for quasi-examination under Article 451 subparagraph 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (the time the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment), which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 461 of the same Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 461 of the same Act, that the court rendered a judgment on November 19, 2012 without making an explicit decision as to the filing of the order to submit documents on November 19, 2012 and on November 27, 2012.

However, the court's conclusion of pleadings without making any particular decision on the request for the submission of documents, etc., and the pronouncement of judgment shall be deemed to be the implied rejection of such a request, so it shall not be deemed to constitute omission of judgment.

(1) Article 451 subparag. 9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for quasi-examination” under Article 451 subparag. 9 of the same Act shall apply to the applicant for quasi-examination.

In addition, Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 461 of the same Act, so an applicant for quasi-examination shall file a quasi-examination within 30 days, which is a peremptory term, from the date he/she becomes aware of such grounds. In cases of grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 9 of the Civil Procedure Act claimed by the applicant for quasi-examination, barring any special circumstance, if the parties were to receive the original copy of the judgment, then the applicant becomes aware of such grounds. However, even if the application for quasi-examination was calculated on May 9, 2013 by the Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na48963, which became final and conclusive, it is evident that the application for quasi

[Quasi-Review Applicants asserted that the above grounds for retrial were known at the time when the Seoul High Court filed a quasi-Review as Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na1037 ( November 27, 2013). It is evident that the application for quasi-Review of this case was filed after the lapse of 30 days even if it is calculated from the date. Thus, Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable.