1. All applications for quasi-deliberation of this case and lawsuits for retrial shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination and those of retrial shall be considered.

1. The quasi-examination of a ruling or order (hereinafter referred to as “decision, etc.”) with respect to an application for quasi-examination may be decided, etc. against which an immediate appeal may be lodged, or a decision, etc. which becomes final and conclusive independently regardless of the final judgment or the final judgment, etc.

(See Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act, Supreme Court Order 2004Ma660 Decided September 13, 2004). The quasi-deliberation decision of this case is to confirm that “Defendant’s application for exercise of his right to explanation and objection (i) the failure of the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice to the Defendant is a breach of contract.”

(2) As of June 30, 2013, it is confirmed that the defendant shall receive a return of 4.8 million won after deducting the unpaid monthly taxes, etc. from the defendant.

③ The Plaintiff confirms that the Defendant is liable for flood damage amounting to KRW 11.2 million.

The purport of “decision” is to seek a decision. It is a “decision of rejection”, and there is no express provision that it may be appealed as an immediate appeal, and it cannot be deemed that it is a decision that has the nature of a final judgment or that it is a final judgment independently regardless of the final judgment.

Therefore, the decision subject to quasi-examination of this case cannot be subject to quasi-examination.

2. As to the request for retrial, the Defendant asserts that “The judgment on review contains important matters affecting the judgment, namely, the Defendant’s determination on the issue of tax invoices, the assertion related to flood damage, and the assertion related to the delivery of keys, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

However, since it is apparent that all of the defendant's arguments in the judgment subject to a retrial have been made clearly, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the motion for quasi-deliberation of this case and the lawsuit for retrial are all unlawful and dismissed.