1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

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 June 11, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Defendant, alleging that the fire in this case was caused by the negligence of E, who was in the position of the Defendant or the Defendant’s employees or agents, while taking advantage of D’s 4 greenhouses owned by the Defendant, in the course of taking advantage of D’s request, in order for E to repair one unit entrance, among the said plastic houses, and that the said plastic houses, etc. were burned on the clothes, bodies, etc. in the said plastic houses (hereinafter “the instant fire”).

(The District Court 201Gahap11488). (b)

On July 18, 2012, there is no evidence to prove that the instant fire was directly caused by the Defendant’s negligence, and E performed the repair work of the plastic house entrance under the Defendant’s control.

The judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the repair work was performed by the defendant directly or by the defendant's instructions from D, and due to the lack of evidence to prove that E was performed by the defendant's performance assistant or employee.

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 1, 2013.

(Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na69670, hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Review") d.

The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial on February 19, 2013, and appealed. However, the lower court’s dismissal order became final and conclusive on March 25, 2013, and the said judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 22, 2013.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion D is without involvement of the Defendant, even though the Defendant received instructions or delegations from the Defendant regarding the repair of the plastic entrance door, and asked E to visit work.