On November 11, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment that accepted the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit and dismissed the defendant's claim on the counterclaim against the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Da3527 (principal lawsuit), 2009Kadan4 (Counterclaim).

B. As to this, the Defendant appealed to this Court 2009Na6739 (principal lawsuit), 2009Na6746 (Counterclaim), and the Intervenor’s Intervenor participated in the above lawsuit during the period of the above appellate trial, but the above court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on September 3, 2010 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

C. The Defendant filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2010Da81636, 2010Da81643 (Counterclaim), but the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal on December 23, 2010, which became final and conclusive as it is, on the 27th day of the same month.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Although the plaintiff's representative made a false statement at the first instance court and the appellate court subject to review, the court of first instance and the appellate court subject to review did not err in the judgment subject to review, but did not err in any judgment on important matters that could affect the judgment in the judgment subject to review, which is contrary to the final judgment previously rendered. Since civil or criminal judgment, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to review, was changed by another judgment or administrative disposition thereafter, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)7 through 10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject

B. A judge who participated in a trial, which served as the basis for the Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial, committed a crime by violating the law and subordinate statutes, and committed a criminal act, such as fraud by the Plaintiff and F, and fabrication of private documents, and the trial was conducted by false statements, and not only omitted the determination on important matters, but also another civil or criminal judgment, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial