1. Of the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part on grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act is excluded.

The following facts, such as the confirmation of a judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant in this court:

On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Suwon District Court 2012Gahap13203, which sought a judgment identical to the description in the purport of the claim. On October 8, 2014, the said court dismissed the remainder of the claims except the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal disposition (A.), on which the claim is unlawful as it constitutes abuse of the right of action. The court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal disposition on the ground that it goes against the res judicata effect of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 2008Na39303.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na56906, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 22, 2015 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision on Review”). The above judgment was served on the Plaintiff on July 28, 2015, and the period of appeal became final and conclusive.

On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case.

As to the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff’s argument that the judgment subject to a retrial was based on the false statement made by Law Firm C (Attorney P and Q, who were the Defendant’s attorney). As such, there exist grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject

Since the judgment subject to a retrial did not state any reasons, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

According to Article 456(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date when the party concerned becomes final and conclusive, and the above period is a peremptory term, and whether a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the same Act is omitted, which is a ground for retrial, may be known to the party concerned when the original copy of the judgment was served, and barring any special circumstance, the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial was served.