1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. On October 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming payment of consulting success fees of KRW 354 million and delay damages (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gahap518788), and the said court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 5, 2018.

(A) No. 24-2). The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance (Seoul High Court 2018Na2060121), but this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 24, 2019 (Evidence A24-1), and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff’s legal representative on July 25, 2019, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on August 9, 2019, as the Plaintiff did not file a final appeal even after the lapse of 14 days from the Plaintiff.

2. Part on grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant submitted a forged or altered document to the court in the process of the above lawsuit and made a false statement. C, the former representative director of the Defendant, was present in the court as a witness and made a false statement.

As such, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that forged or altered documents and false statements by the Defendant and C, were evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. However, filing a lawsuit for a retrial on the grounds that there are grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is permissible only when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction against forgery of documents, alteration of a witness’s false statement, or a final and conclusive judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence on a party’s false statement based on a party’s examination or it is impossible to do so for reasons other than lack of evidence pursuant to Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, regardless of

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29658 delivered on October 24, 1989, etc.). However, the defendant is also the defendant.