1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E to confirm whether the Plaintiff made a false statement or claim for damages (hereinafter “case subject to review”) with the court 2014Gahap13597.

B. On April 17, 2015, the full bench of the case subject to review decided to provide the said Defendants with KRW 9,300,000 as security of litigation costs on behalf of the said Defendants, but the Plaintiff did not provide a security within the given period even after receiving the said decision.

C. On February 18, 2016, the full bench of the case subject to review rendered a judgment of retirement on the ground that the order to provide litigation costs was not complied with.

Although the Plaintiff appealed against the above retirement judgment, the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant E on July 7, 2016, and rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit against Defendant D. The judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on July 29, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts to party members, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The following grounds for retrial exist in the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B, C, D, and E were subject to a retrial.

① In the case subject to a new trial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, Defendant C and Defendant D were the legal representative.

However, the delegation of the lawsuit in the name of Defendant C was forged by Defendant C’s arbitrary production and sealing of the Defendant C’s neck, and the Defendant D had the appointment act using the name of the president of the representative director P, who was the president of the office, affixed the seal of Q puts on his personal seal.

In addition, even though the representative director H of defendant B law firm was a patent attorney, it was illegal litigation by misrepresenting the lawyer.

This is the power of attorney of the defendant C and the defendant D corporation.