구상금
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent or apparent to this court.
On July 12, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as a joint and several surety, and the first instance court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 13,590,170 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from April 30, 2003 to the date of full payment.”
In regard to this, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion, and in accordance with the purport of the reduced claim, the appellate court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 37,180,925 won and 12,190,170 won among them, 12% per annum from March 15, 2016 to March 30, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.
Although the defendant appealed against this, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da26976 Decided September 30, 2016) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Inasmuch as a written agreement on debt reduction and exemption concluded on September 24, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was modified, there exist grounds for retrial falling under “when documents and other items as evidence of the judgment were forged or altered” under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial. 2) The agreement on debt division between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was rescinded, and accordingly the Defendant’s implied ratification based on the above agreement is not valid. Accordingly, the judgment subject to retrial constitutes grounds for retrial falling under “when a judgment on important matters affecting the judgment was omitted” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when documents and other articles used as evidence for a judgment have been forged or altered,” as grounds for retrial, Article 451(1)6 of the same Act provides that “when documents and other articles used as evidence for a judgment have been