1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the payment of goods with Busan District Court Decision 2010 Ghana143053, on October 5, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed as Busan District Court Decision 2010Na17977, but on February 16, 2011, the final judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on February 16, 201. Although the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 201Da21761, May 26, 201, the first instance judgment became final and conclusive on May 26, 2011, and the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive as it is by record or is significant to this court.

2. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable for a cause for retrial under Article 24(1) of the Commercial Act during the pleading. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment rendered in the judgment subject to retrial that the Defendant did not recognize the Defendant’s liability as the nominal holder of the name of “B,” the Plaintiff denied the Defendant’s liability for the nominal holder on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have provided the goods by misunderstanding the Defendant as the business owner of “B”. As such, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

(1) The Plaintiff’s grounds for retrial on September 14, 1982 are unlawful on the ground that the grounds for retrial on the ground that the Plaintiff’s grounds for retrial on the ground that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment subject to retrial, and thus does not constitute any grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Da24 delivered on December 8, 1987). 3. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is unlawful.