1. The plaintiff (the defendant for review, and the defendant for intermediate confirmation) of the plaintiff (the plaintiff for review, the plaintiff for intermediate confirmation) shall file a suit for review.

1. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

(a) The following facts are apparent in the records:

1) On September 9, 2004, a complaint was received for payment of each claim stated in the purport of the claim against the construction against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff, the intermediary confirmation Plaintiff, and the intermediary confirmation Defendant) in the name of the Plaintiff (the review Plaintiff, the intermediary confirmation Plaintiff, and the intermediary confirmation Defendant) and the Plaintiff (the intermediate confirmation Defendant) on September 14, 2005 were present at all on the date of mediation open for 15:00 on September 14, 2005, but all of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff, the intermediary confirmation Plaintiff, and the intermediary confirmation Defendant) were not present at the representative and the attorney of the Vienna Construction. As of September 14, 2005, this court withdrawn the claim for provisional seizure in lieu of the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff, the intermediary confirmation Plaintiff, and the intermediary confirmation Defendant) and the Plaintiff (the intermediate confirmation Defendant) at the Ulsan District Court’s expense (the Plaintiff, the intermediate confirmation Plaintiff, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff), and the Plaintiff (the intermediate confirmation Defendant), the intermediate confirmation Plaintiff’s claim for provisional seizure.

3) On September 21, 2005, the instant compulsory adjustment order was issued by the Service Certification Board on October 11, 2005, and a copy of the instant compulsory adjustment order on September 7, 2006, to the Plaintiff (Re-Examination Plaintiff, Interim Confirmation Plaintiff) and Vienna Construction, and to the Plaintiff (Re-Examination Defendant, and Interim Confirmation Defendant) on September 26, 2005, on which both parties did not file an objection within two weeks thereafter, and on October 11, 2005, it became final and conclusive on September 24, 2016. After the instant compulsory adjustment order, the instant compulsory adjustment order was issued respectively by the Service Certification Board on September 17, 2006, and on September 4, 2006, the Plaintiff (Re-Examination Plaintiff, Interim Confirmation Plaintiff) submitted an application date for the designation of the instant compulsory adjustment order to the court on September 17, 2015.