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

On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Defendant for review; hereinafter “Defendant”) seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed, stating that the attached list was not a document that was not a document that was duly formed.

B. On October 17, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the ground that “The attached list is merely a document stating the name, address, and contact information of several persons, including the Defendant, including the Defendant, and it does not directly prove the existence of certain legal relations from the content thereof, and thus, it cannot be the subject of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”).

C. On May 15, 2018, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) against the judgment of the first instance, and appealed by this Court No. 2017Na1643.

As to the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da27607, stating that “The annexed annexed list is not prepared by the Defendant, but forged.” However, the final appeal was dismissed on August 30, 2018, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on September 3, 2018.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The judgment subject to a retrial, even though the Defendant did not directly sign the Plaintiff’s assertion on the annexed annual list but instead, a specific person forged the Defendant’s signature and forged it, was neglected.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when documents and other articles used as evidence of a judgment were forged or altered), and Article 451(1)9 (when judgment on important matters affecting a judgment is omitted) in the judgment subject to retrial.

(b).