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

purport, purport, ..

The defendant's type E requested F to escape from North Korea, F requested C to depart from North Korea, and C again requested the plaintiff to enter Korea.

In the process, on December 10, 2009, the defendant prepared and ordered to pay to the plaintiff four million won in return for having the plaintiff enter Korea.

Although the guide employed by the plaintiff was in a difficult situation, the border of the Thailand in China, the issue of Korean entry was not well progress, and C entered Korea with the help of G upon request from G, and F paid KRW 3 million received from E to G.

B. On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that not only lent KRW 4 million to the Defendant, but also the Defendant’s entry into Korea, and thus, it should be paid KRW 4 million in return. On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Defendant under the Suwon District Court 2010 Ghana95, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 19, 201.

(Judgment of the court of first instance).

The plaintiff dissatisfied with this claim filed an appeal with Suwon District Court 201Na32478, and the plaintiff paid money for the defendant's right to North Korea, and added a claim for return of unjust enrichment to the purport that the defendant prepared a loan certificate to pay 4 million won in return, and thus, it should be returned. However, on April 25, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing both the plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added in the appellate court (hereinafter "the judgment for review"). D.

On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff received the original copy of the above judgment, but did not file an appeal. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 18, 2012.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is below the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.