2...

On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming compensation for property damage and consolation money (the Jeonju District Court 2015Da34620) suffered by the Plaintiff on the ground that the police officers and investigators belonging to the Defendant renounced the investigation without making an investigation or did not complete the statute of limitations on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s accusation case was insufficient to deem that the police officers, etc. belonging to the Defendant lose objective legitimacy and committed unlawful acts to the extent that it is considerably unreasonable.

B. The Plaintiff appealed therefrom (the Jeonju District Court 2016Na9936), and the appellate court expanded the scope of damages and expanded the claim by increasing the amount of consolation money.

On November 2, 2017, the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff’s appeal and the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment subject to review”), and the original judgment subject to review was served on the Plaintiff on November 9, 2017.

C. On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da283349), and the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal on February 28, 2018, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on March 5, 2018.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. On March 16, 2003, the Plaintiff’s summary of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, among the documents that were admitted as evidence of the judgment subject to retrial and the first instance judgment prior to the review, the following documents were falsified: (a) the agreement on the management and share; (b) the status of equity holders’ investment; and (c) details of sales estimates and countermeasures; and (d) the statement on the settlement of accounts; and (c) the testimony made by C and D.