1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on this court’s order 2013da259704, but the said court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on August 20, 2015, and the Plaintiff appealed, but the appellate court (hereinafter referred to as “litigation subject to a retrial”) rendered a judgment dismissing the said appeal on April 20, 2016.

As the plaintiff did not appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial, the above judgment became final and conclusive on May 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Clear or obvious facts in record

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for a retrial as provided by Article 451(1)8 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 451(9) and (8) of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, since all of the contents of the judgment subject to a retrial were erroneous or erroneous.

First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that a criminal judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da55224, 2014No1372, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do11140) against the Defendants, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial, has changed according to another judgment or administrative disposition on the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Next, as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, there is no specific part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the judgment was omitted among the judgments subject to a retrial, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was omitted from the determination on whether to waive the exclusive right to use and benefit in accordance with the reference document signed on December 2, 2016, it is not recognized that the Plaintiff asserted the waiver of the exclusive right to use and benefit in a lawsuit subject to a retrial as an attack and defense.

Furthermore, even if the judgment on the above argument of the plaintiff was omitted in the litigation subject to family review.