1. All of the appeals filed by the defendant are dismissed;

2. The costs of the review are assessed against 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:

On December 8, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the Incheon District Court No. 2010 Ghana324961, and the above court rendered a judgment citing the plaintiffs' claim on May 4, 201.

B. The Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the above judgment, appealed to the Incheon District Court 201Na8874, but on May 31, 2012, the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) was rendered.

C. The Defendant appealed to the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da58494, but the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the final judgment rendered on September 13, 2012.

2. Grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff A, without receiving the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, voluntarily stated the name of Plaintiff B in the delegation letter of a lawsuit and affixed the Plaintiff B’s seal and act for the Plaintiff B without authority, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. The judgment of the Incheon District Court 2010 Ghana324961, the first instance court of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, is null and void due to procedural issues, etc.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the instant judgment subject to a retrial violates the Incheon District Court Decision 2010Da324961, which was a final judgment rendered prior to the judgment, and thus, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Defendant on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a defect in the power to exercise the plaintiffs’ right to act in the litigation of the instant judgment subject to retrial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

(b).