1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. On July 24, 2015, in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da310091, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendants: “The Defendants jointly file an incidental appeal against the Defendants, and pay to the Plaintiff 38,018,187 won, and interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 18, 2010 to July 24, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment and filed an incidental appeal. However, the above court rendered a new judgment on October 13, 2016 that “The Plaintiff’s appeal and incidental appeal by the Defendants are all dismissed” (hereinafter “the subject judgment”), which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on September 18, 2010 to the Plaintiff’s final and conclusive judgment on July 21, 2016, and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed as the Plaintiff’s final and conclusive by the Supreme Court.

2. Determination as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. In the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)4 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judge, who was involved in the judgment, commits a crime relating to his duties in connection with the case), and Article 451(1)7 (when the false statement by

B. As to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, if the requirements of Article 451(2) (in the case of Article 451(1)4 through 7, only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, a lawsuit for retrial may be instituted) are not satisfied.