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

purport, purport, and.

On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants claiming the return of the purchase price (hereinafter “litigation”) with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Gahap21916, and (1) primarily sought restitution and restitution of unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of a sale and purchase contract on the grounds of fraud or mistake, and (2) the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages due to incomplete performance of contractual obligations.

B. On June 23, 2016, the above court rendered a ruling dismissing both the Plaintiff’s primary and conjunctive claims (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) and the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on July 19, 2016, as the Plaintiff did not appeal.

2. In a lawsuit subject to a retrial on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, D’s false statement was a key evidence that affects the judgment subject to a retrial. Since D was indicted for perjury and was convicted of perjury, the judgment subject to a retrial has become final and conclusive, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. The witness’s testimony was false if a suit for retrial was filed on the ground that the false statement of the witness in the relevant legal doctrine was the evidence of the judgment.

Even if the testimony was quoted on the family or in addition from the reason of the judgment, or was based on the circumstance that the false statement does not affect the recognition of the principal fact, there shall not be grounds for retrial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1864 delivered on January 19, 198, etc.). The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1864, Jan. 19, 198) refer to the case where the false statement is provided as evidence for fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment. If so, the false statement