1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On October 5, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on behalf of H seeking the payment of advertising service costs under the above contract (hereinafter “instant advertising service costs”) on the premise that the parties to the advertising agency and production contract (hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”) entered into with the Plaintiff on behalf of H (hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”) are the Defendants (trade name C: hereinafter the same shall apply). In addition, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of J as the claimant for advertising service costs against J as the claimant for the said contract’s advertising service costs on the premise that H is a corporation J.

On June 26, 2013, the Suwon District Court, which is the legal ground of the first instance trial, dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim, and partly accepted the 8,700,000 won of the conjunctive claim and the damages for delay thereof, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the conjunctive claim.

[2012Gahap201980, 2013Gahap200342 (combined)] The plaintiff appealed and the Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal on April 3, 2014.

[Attachment] [2013Na2013700, 2013717 (“instant judgment subject to a retrial”)

[] Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the final appeal on July 24, 2014 (2014Da209708, 209715) and the instant judgment subject to final judgment became final and conclusive.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the judgment subject to a retrial is admissible as evidence, and thus, the parties to the instant advertising agency contract were J and rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim.

However, H was pronounced guilty due to perjury in the instant case subject to review (Seoul Northern District Court 2014dan4332), and H appealed, but the appeal was dismissed (Seoul Northern District Court 2015No103), and the above judgment around that time.