1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, each of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is based on each of the grounds for retrial.

1. The following facts are clearly recorded in the judgment subject to a retrial:

On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff, at the court of first instance against the Defendant on July 7, 2014, confirmed that the disposition of the C Headquarters Operating Business issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 7, 2014 and the disposition of the reduction of salary is null and void. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 400,300 to the Plaintiff from August 1, 2014 to the date the above disposition is revoked, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 13, 2015.

(Judgment of the court of first instance).

On January 27, 2016, the plaintiff appealed to this court against the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.

(Judgment of review).

On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative following the above original judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act were based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the same Act, and the Defendant or his/her legal representative made a false statement at the first instance court or the appellate court. As such, the judgment subject to retrial appears to have grounds for retrial pursuant to Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act. This part appears to have been subject to a request for retrial ex officio.

According to Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a party’s false statement following a party’s examination becomes evidence of a judgment” is one of the grounds for retrial. However, pursuant to Article 451(2) of the same Act, a lawsuit for retrial may be instituted only where “when a judgment imposing a fine for negligence cannot be rendered or a final judgment on imposition of a fine for negligence cannot

However, there is a ground for a retrial under Paragraph 1 (7) of the same Article.