1. Of the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part on grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act is excluded.

1. Following facts which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review shall be significant or clearly recorded in this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of the down payment and the intermediate payment due to the cancellation of contract, as Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2013Kadan39690, and the said court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 26, 2014.

B. The Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the above judgment, appealed to the Incheon District Court 2014Na14207, but the judgment dismissing the appeal on June 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) was rendered and became final and conclusive on July 17, 2015 by the Defendant’s failure to file a final appeal.

2. Grounds for requesting the retrial;

A. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A” evidence of the instant judgment subject to a retrial is a forged document. As such, there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the said Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

B. The instant judgment subject to a retrial was deemed to have omitted judgment on the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Construction Contract (Evidence A(Evidence A1) and that the Defendant failed to perform the pre-stage investigation for the establishment of a tent. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. In the case of the Incheon District Court 2013ss. 14368, the conciliation was established that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 13,00,000 to the Defendant by the end of December, 2013” (hereinafter “instant conciliation”), and it is found that the Plaintiff erred in the Defendant. However, the instant judgment subject to the retrial did not reflect the Plaintiff’s mistake, and did not deduct the amount recognized in the instant conciliation from the Plaintiff’s claim, and did not constitute a violation of the res judicata effect of the instant conciliation protocol.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to retrial.

3. Determination

A. According to Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the documents and other articles constituting evidence of the judgment are as follows.