1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. Following facts which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review shall be significant or clearly recorded in this court:

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant against the defendant as the Incheon District Court No. 2010 Family Court No. 324961, and the above court rendered each judgment citing the plaintiffs' claims on May 4, 2011.

B. The Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the above judgment, appealed to the Incheon District Court 201Na8874, but on May 31, 2012, the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) was rendered.

C. The Defendant appealed to the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da58494, but the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the final judgment rendered on September 13, 2012.

2. Grounds for requesting the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff A, without receiving the Plaintiff’s power of attorney, voluntarily stated the name of Plaintiff B in the delegation letter of a lawsuit and affixed the Plaintiff B’s seal and act for the Plaintiff B without authority, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. Since the instant judgment subject to a retrial was obstructed in submitting methods of offence and defense due to the failure of the Defendant to submit evidence in the litigation procedures for the instant judgment subject to a retrial, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial

C. The content of the message inquiries, text pictures, etc., as evidence of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, were collected without following due process, and thus, cannot be admitted as evidence. As the recording time and content of the instant judgment subject to a retrial was distorted, the instant judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the case of Incheon District Court 201 High Court 201 High Court 5491, a fine of 1.5 million won was imposed against the defendant, and the above judgment was the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial.