1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, is as follows:

1. Finality of the judgment subject to a retrial and the circumstances leading to the judgment remanded (record clearly stated)

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the additional and modified works for mechanical installation works implemented upon receipt of demand from the Defendant were completed, but failed to receive the construction cost, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking construction cost payment of KRW 187,748,00 as Gwangju District Court 207Gahap966 and delayed payment damages, but the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 22, 2007.

B. On April 15, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance, but (Seoul High Court 2007Na6931), the first instance court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 15, 2009, and the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court 2009Da34115), but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 20, 209, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

C. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff, who testified as a witness of the Defendant, was convicted of perjury and the judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that there was a cause for retrial falling under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial on the ground that there was a cause for retrial falling under Article 451(1)7 of the said Act, but the judgment prior to the remand was rendered a judgment prior to the remand on August 8, 2012, on the ground that even if the statement of D was not adopted as evidence, the remaining evidence alone does not affect the order of the judgment prior to the retrial that the Defendant does not have any obligation to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment prior to remand (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da77709). The Supreme Court has accepted the plaintiff's appeal and rendered a judgment prior to remand on the ground that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.