1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

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

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

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion, the first instance judgment, and the judgment subject to a retrial, were sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court jointly committed an illegal act. Since the Plaintiff received a disposition that the Defendant was innocent in the fraud case (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office 2018 type No. 10572) against the Defendant, this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. We examine the judgment, and the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment or other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of the judgment, was changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition) refer to cases where the final judgment legally binding, or a judgment or administrative disposition, which became the basis of fact-finding, has become final and conclusive by another judgment or administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12679, Dec. 14, 2001). The above grounds asserted by the defendant, cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's request for retrial is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.