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

The Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Defendant for the payment of overdue rent, tax and public charges, etc. and the damages for delay by asserting that the Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the Defendant and the Defendant as a vice-office 2012Ga12799, which occurred in the course of operating the restaurant as a result of operating the restaurant. On October 31, 2013, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s remaining principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim by citing part of the Plaintiff’s principal claim and rejecting the Plaintiff’s counterclaim.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed to the Daegu District Court No. 2013Na19937 (Mains) and 2013Na19944 (Counterclaim), and the Plaintiff took advantage of this, and filed an incidental appeal. On July 23, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment to accept a part of the appeal against the Defendant’s principal lawsuit and a counterclaim, and to dismiss the remainder of the appeal against the Defendant’s counterclaim and the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal, and the Plaintiff was served with the certified copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on July 28, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da55376 (principal lawsuit), and 2014Da55383 (Counterclaim), but the final appeal was dismissed by a judgment of non-exclusive trial on November 13, 2014, and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff on November 17, 2014, thereby becoming final and conclusive.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Claim for revocation of the disposition of non-approval of medical care filed by M&L against M&L (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Gudan4673).