1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s action for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Following the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial is recognized by this court as an obvious fact or by the whole purport of pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff, in collusion with the Defendant, B, and D, filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 26 million for the reason that the Plaintiff voluntarily reported the value-added tax for the first period of 2014 to the Plaintiff, thereby causing economic and mental damage to the Plaintiff.

(A) On September 21, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 21, 2016, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment of the first instance (Seoul District Court 2016Na13086), and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal by citing the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “the second judgment”).

C. Although the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on August 23, 2017, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around this time.

2. If a lawsuit seeking retrial is lawful, there must be grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see attached Form).

However, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant et al. voluntarily reported the surcharge without the plaintiff's permission and did not bear any responsibility to the plaintiff, thereby seeking compensation for damages arising therefrom. It does not assert any grounds for retrial as prescribed by the above law.

There is no evidence that there is a ground for retrial under the above law.

3. We dismiss the instant lawsuit for retrial on the grounds that there is no ground for retrial.