1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's successor to the litigation costs for retrial shall be the plaintiff.

According to the provisions of Articles 117 and 124 of the Civil Procedure Act, where it is deemed necessary to offer a security for the costs of lawsuit, such as when a claim is not sustainable due to a complaint, briefs and other records of trial, the court may order the plaintiff to offer a security for the costs of lawsuit ex officio, and if the plaintiff fails to offer a security within the period for providing such security, the court may dismiss the lawsuit by its judgment

On May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking restitution of unjust enrichment with the Daejeon District Court 2013Gahap3907, and the Intervenor filed an application for intervention in succession on December 10, 2014 of the same year. However, the judgment against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was rendered on May 21, 2014, and the judgment dismissing all the appeals of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on October 28, 2015 in the case of return of unjust enrichment (No. 2014Na1565) pending as the Intervenor’s appeal. The court rendered a request for retrial against the said appellate judgment on February 12, 2016, and this court rendered a request for retrial on September 26, 2016 by the Supreme Court ordering the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor to deposit litigation costs with the Supreme Court 117(2) and 120(1) of the Civil Procedure Act within 70 days after the date of receipt of the order, which became final and conclusive.

Thus, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's request for retrial of this case is the Civil Procedure Act.