1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court.

On October 30, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants with Suwon District Court 2003Da70771, which sought implementation of the procedure for the cancellation registration of each share transfer registration completed in the name of the Defendants. On July 7, 2004, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the first instance judgment that dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff appealed with Suwon District Court 2004Na13462, but on March 31, 2005, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). The instant judgment subject to a retrial was finalized on August 1, 2005 through the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22190).

C. After that, on May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a suit for review of the instant judgment subject to review with the Suwon District Court 2010Na137, and asserted Article 451(1)6, 7, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act as grounds for retrial, but was sentenced to a ruling dismissing the suit on November 9, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

After that, on August 16, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted Article 451(1)6 and 7 as grounds for retrial when filing a lawsuit for retrial with the Suwon District Court 201 Jaena 196 regarding the instant judgment subject to retrial, but was sentenced to a ruling dismissing a suit for retrial on July 24, 2012, and the said ruling became final and conclusive thereafter.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff asserted forgery of seals and sales-related documents. The Plaintiff forged documents related to the Plaintiff’s seal and forged each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) and completed a share transfer registration for each of the instant land as if the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s share from the Plaintiff. As such, the instant judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the document and other articles used as evidence for the judgment have been forged or altered.”