1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking restitution of unjust enrichment with the Seoul Central District Court. On January 25, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment of the first instance court that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment prior to the remanding the Plaintiff’s appeal dismissed on October 24, 2013.

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment prior to remand, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment prior to remand on March 27, 2014, and sentenced the instant case to the Seoul High Court.

After remand, the Seoul High Court, the appellate court, revoked part of the judgment of the first instance on October 17, 2014, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part, and the text of the judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal, is as follows.

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 250 million won with 6% interest per annum from July 13, 2012 to October 17, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

A. The Court rendered a ruling.

E. On October 22, 2014, the original original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on the Defendant. The Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial on November 3, 2014, which is within the period of final appeal, and appealed on November 19, 2014, and withdrawn the final appeal, and accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

F. Meanwhile, on November 19, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking retrial of this case by asserting that the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act was “when the judgment on important matters affecting the judgment was omitted”.

2...