1. All of the lawsuits and applications for quasi-deliberation of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. The following facts shall be apparent or clearly recorded in this court with respect to a decision subject to review and the final and conclusive judgment:

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants filed a false accusation against the Plaintiff, thereby incurring property and mental damage, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking the payment of damages under Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2012 Ghana 240579, which was rendered a favorable judgment in the first instance trial.

The plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, and the defendants filed an incidental appeal, and the appellate court of the above case (this court 2014Na122222) decided that the acts of the defendants cannot be viewed as tort on July 24, 2014, and thus the court of first instance revoked the part of the judgment against the defendants and dismissed all the plaintiff's claims (hereinafter "the first retrial judgment") and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds of omitting a judgment, which is the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (this Court Decision 2014Na227). However, on December 24, 2014, the above court rendered a ruling dismissing a quasi-adjudication application and dismissing a petition for retrial (hereinafter “the second judgment”) on the grounds that the application for quasi-Review was filed against a decision that is not subject to quasi-Review and that it cannot be deemed unlawful and omitted in the judgment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

C. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial on the same ground (this Court Decision 2015Na19). On May 22, 2015, the said court rendered a ruling dismissing the application for quasi-deliberation and dismissing the application for reexamination on the ground that the application for quasi-deliberation is unlawful and it cannot be deemed that there was an omission in judgment in the judgment on the second re-adjudication (hereinafter “the judgment on the third re-adjudication”) in accordance with the res judicata effect of the judgment on the second re-adjudication.

On June 6, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a petition for final appeal against the above judgment, and on June 10, 2015.