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 clearly recorded in the judgment subject to a retrial:

On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that there is no security deposit obligation of KRW 5,00,000 against the Defendant based on a monetary loan contract concluded with the Defendant on May 18, 2012, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and age assessment information seeking payment of KRW 1,00,000 for mental damages due to tort (registration of non-performance of information). On January 28, 2014, the Defendant primarily claimed against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 5,689,416 as security deposit based on joint and several surety contract, and damages for delayed payment of KRW 4,51,434 as security deposit based on the joint and several surety contract, and the conjunctive claim for reimbursement of KRW 4,551,434 as security deposit based on the tort and damages for delay payment.

On January 29, 2015, the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of existence of the obligation, partly accepted the claim for consolation money, dismissed the defendant's claim for guaranty money, and declared a judgment that partly accepted the claim for damages based on the tort.

(Judgment of the court of first instance).

On the other hand, the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance on the main lawsuit and counterclaim, and the appellate court forcedly coordinated the contents of the withdrawal of the lawsuit, etc. from the age assessment information, and was sentenced by the appellate court on September 10, 2015 to dismiss each appeal against the plaintiff's main lawsuit and counterclaim.

(Judgment of review).

The Plaintiff appealed and appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da237526, 2015Da237533 (Counterclaim)). However, the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal on November 26, 2015, which became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that of the judgment subject to retrial.