2...

On January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On October 2, 2008, the said court rendered a judgment that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff appealed to the judgment of the first instance court of this case with Suwon District Court 2008Na24040 (the Plaintiff extended the purport of the claim in the appellate court). On April 22, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff’s appeal and the claim expanded in the appellate court (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).

C. The original copy of the instant judgment subject to a retrial was served on April 29, 2009 on the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff did not file an appeal, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 14, 2009.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act 1) In the first instance court of the instant lawsuit, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that

(2) The judgment of the appellate court prior to the retrial of the lawsuit in this case is based on the following legal principles: “A law firm, the attorney of a national bank, appointed by D, was represented by the defendant as the defendant’s attorney; and, at the appellate court prior to the retrial of the lawsuit in this case, C, a law firm, who forged a power of attorney by arbitrarily viewing the defendant’s seal and affixing the power of attorney, representing the defendant’s attorney as the defendant’s attorney; thus, the judgment of the appellate court constitutes grounds for retrial falling under “when there is any defect in granting the power of representation, power of attorney, or power of attorney necessary for conducting the litigation” under Article 451(1)