On August 19, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in Suwon District Court Branch 2008Gahap13643 to confirm whether an illegal act was constituted, and on August 19, 2009, the above court dismissed the judgment (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of retrial") and the judgment of dismissal on the part of the conjunctive claim for damages. The above judgment was served on August 24, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na87586 only with respect to the claim for damages in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the appellate court revoked the part concerning the claim for damages in the judgment of the court of first instance on April 15, 201 and rendered a judgment dismissing this part of the lawsuit.

C. On April 15, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the appellate court’s judgment and filed an appeal. The presiding judge of the appellate court ordered the appellate court to correct the stamp, etc. following the appeal within the period for correction. However, as the Plaintiff did not correct the stamp within the period for correction, the presiding judge of the appellate court ordered the rejection of the appeal on the ground of non-reclution as to June 13, 201. On June 15, 201, the Plaintiff did not file an immediate appeal within the period for filing an immediate appeal even after the Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the dismissal order. This judgment became final and conclusive

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff filed an application for witness E in the course of the litigation of the judgment subject to review. The full bench revoked the plaintiff's application for witness ex officio, and the full bench did not accept the application even though he requested to impose a fine for negligence upon E as he refused to attend the witness. As such, the judgment subject to review constitutes abuse of the right to order the pleading. Thus, the judgment subject to review refers to "when the false statement by the defendant or the defendant's representative becomes evidence of the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act or "any important matter that may affect the judgment" under