1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

The following facts are apparent or apparent to this court in the judgment subject to a retrial.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of a loan under a loan agreement on June 20, 2008 and March 10, 2010, but the Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff’s above claim after the Plaintiff acquired all of the Plaintiff’s above claim (the Plaintiff’s withdrawal thereafter), and thereafter the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was sentenced to a judgment in favor of all of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenors.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da78684 Decided January 27, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da78684).

Accordingly, while filing an appeal, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff for the confirmation that there was no obligation to take over the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor under each of the above loan agreements between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking confirmation that there was no obligation to take over the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed in entirety, and the Defendant’s appeal against the principal lawsuit was dismissed, and the judgment was rendered to fully accept

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Na11693, 2015Na44730 (Counterclaim) decided October 16, 2015, hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Central District Court Decision"). (c)

Therefore, although the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the appeal was dismissed.

[Supreme Court Decision 2015Da67482, 2015Da67499, February 25, 2016] Defendant’s assertion

A. In a case subject to a retrial on the existence of a cause for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff’s successor did not attach a certificate of a corporation seal impression to the power of attorney of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor. As such, the proceedings were initiated by an attorney without legitimate delegation by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when there is any defect in granting legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority

(b) the Civil Procedure Act;