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

purport, purport, ..

The Plaintiff, in collusion with C, received 19,00,000,000 won as interest on the above loan certificate, and acquired the same amount as the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for unjust enrichment under the jurisdiction of Chuncheon District Court Branching 2015Da2092, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 5, 2016.

(hereinafter “the first instance judgment”). B.

On October 18, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 18, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.

The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da273710, but the final appeal was dismissed on March 30, 2017, and thereafter, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on April 4, 2017.

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

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the judgment subject to a retrial has grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment rendered by adopting a forged loan certificate (Evidence A No. 8) by C as evidence.

B. Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a document or any other article, which has been used as evidence for a judgment, is forged or altered. It refers to a case where the forged document, etc. is provided as direct or indirect material for fact-finding that has become the ground for the disposition of the judgment, and the court has a possibility that it would have rendered a judgment different from the judgment in question if it did not take into account the forged document, etc., and the remaining evidence except the forged document, etc. is acknowledged.