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

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

purport, purport, ..

The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial are apparent or apparent in records.

On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the above indemnity amount and damages for delay, etc., by asserting that the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kahap523955 (the Defendant acquired the liability for reimbursement against the Plaintiff E in accordance with the merger agreement dated March 7, 2012).

On November 30, 2012, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the above lawsuit.

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed to this Court No. 2013Na20126, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on July 19, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the Defendant did not appeal despite being served with the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on September 28, 2013, which became final and conclusive on September 28, 2013.

On July 31, 2012, when the first instance trial was in progress, the Defendant asserted the existence or absence of a cause for retrial, and transferred the address of the principal office to Gyeonggi-gunO. However, the court in the judgment subject to retrial did not deliver the documents of lawsuit to the Defendant’s existing address and served the documents unlawfully to the person without authority, and accordingly, the Defendant’s substantial litigation was excluded.

Such circumstances constitute “defect of power of attorney” as a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment

In order to constitute a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when there is any defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority required for conducting a procedural act by a representative,” it should not be deemed that the principal or his/her legal representative could not be the case unless the unauthorized representative has conducted a substantial procedural act on his/her behalf or was unable to conduct a substantive procedural act due to the defect of authority.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da259 delivered on December 22, 1992, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da259).