The defendant asserted that he lent KRW 5,375,00 to the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2003Gadan29774, Oct. 31, 2003, the above court recognized the defendant's assertion by the confession pursuant to Article 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and sentenced "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 5,3750,000 won and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from September 17, 2003 to the date of full payment." The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as the “final and conclusive judgment on loans”). (b)

On November 8, 2013, the Seoul Northern District Court 2013Da22574, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking non-permission of compulsory execution based on the Defendant’s loan final judgment against the Plaintiff, and the conjunctively filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant based on the loan final judgment. On November 8, 2013, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and rendered a judgment dismissing the conjunctive claim (hereinafter “the first judgment”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul Northern District Court 2013Na7989. On August 19, 2014, the said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the subject judgment for review”) and the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2014Da63650, but on December 24, 2014, the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive on December 31, 2014.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The loan certificate, as evidence of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial, was signed by the Plaintiff in blank and entered in the resident registration number, and the Defendant forged it and modified the phrase “liability meeting guarantor and joint guarantor” in front of the name of E. Therefore, Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.