1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, is the amount based on the purport of the claim that was changed to December 27, 2012 after filing a claim against the Defendant for 55,194,000 won and damages for delay thereof.

Although a lawsuit seeking payment was filed on January 21, 2014, the judgment subject to a retrial was pronounced (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da503842 Decided January 21, 2014). The judgment subject to a retrial was rendered to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal (the Plaintiff’s claim was reduced by the appellate court to claim payment of KRW 54,147,940 as well as damages for delay). On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial is also dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da215154), and the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive is apparent in the record.

2. Existence of grounds for retrial

A. On the date of pleading of the Plaintiff, a person who does not have the authority to act as an agent for the Defendant at the date of pleading of the case subject to retrial, and the Defendant’s false statement was evidence of the judgment subject to retrial. As such, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 and 7

B. Determination 1) In the appellate court of a case subject to review, the Defendant did not delegate a representative’s procedural act in the appellate court of the case, and prepared and submitted a preparatory document as of March 6, 2014 in the name of the Defendant himself/herself, and the fact that the said preparatory document was deemed to have been made by failing to appear on the date of pleading ( April 30, 2014) is apparent in the record. As such, there is no reason for the part related to Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act among the Plaintiff’s assertion. 2) The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or a legal representative by a party or by a legal representative by a party examination,” refers to the case where the said false statement was adopted as evidence recognizing the fact on which the text of the judgment was based, and is specifically stated in the written judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da11581, May 8, 8).