1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts, such as the confirmation of the instant judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant in this court:

On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, C, and D seeking the payment of KRW 495,810,387 as damages due to the repayment of investment or the impossibility of performance of change of title (Counterclaim) and damages for delay (C filed a preliminary counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of KRW 120,447,740 as damages and the damages for delay thereof). On April 3, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant, C, and D.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal as Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na22439 (Main Office), 22446 (Counterclaim), and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 16, 2015 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) (hereinafter the part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant).

C. On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal. On March 24, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed the part regarding D and remanded this part of the case to the Seoul High Court. The Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na6042 (Mains) Decided November 2, 2016, and 6059 (Counterclaim) rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant and C (2015Da68522 (Mains), and 68539 (Counterclaim)).

On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with this court.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Defendant’s argument that the instant judgment subject to a retrial was omitted in the determination of the fact that the Defendant was a substantial master of the instant maintenance office (the meaning of the terms used in the instant maintenance office is the same as that of the said judgment subject to a retrial). In order to reveal the substance of the instant case, the determination of the legal effect of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, stating who is the substantial master of the instant maintenance office.