1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the return of the down payment amounting to KRW 18,00,000 and damages for delay thereof (U.S. District Court Decision 2015Daso24008), and the above court rendered a judgment citing all the Plaintiff’s claims on April 21, 2016, when a duplicate of the complaint sent due to Defendant’s resident registration address was impossible to be served.

B. As to this, the Defendant filed an appeal to correct its failure to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant’s failure to comply with by public notice (U.S. District Court 2017Na1483). The above appellate court concluded the pleadings after the Defendant was absent on the first day for pleading on May 11, 2017.

6.1. The judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) was rendered.

C. On June 9, 2017, the Defendant appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and submitted a petition of final appeal. However, the Defendant refused to comply with the order of the appellate court to clarify the recognition, amendment and purport of final appeal.

Accordingly, the appellate court ordered the dismissal of the petition of appeal on June 28, 2017, and the above order reached the defendant on July 19, 2017, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on July 27, 2017.

2. Summary of request for retrial;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the knowledge that the Defendant’s domicile and the actual domicile are different, while entering the Defendant’s resident registration address in the service by public notice, and acquired the judgment by fraud.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The appellate court declared that the defendant was absent on the first day for pleading, and that the defendant dismissed the defendant’s appeal after immediately closing the pleading without hearing by abusing its authority.