1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the determination of a new argument made by the plaintiff (the plaintiff for a retrial; hereinafter “the plaintiff”) in the trial, and therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on new arguments in the trial

A. The Plaintiff alleged that B’s representative director D stated that “the instant corporeal movables are owned by B” at the prosecution. As such, the court of the judgment subject to a retrial did not faithfully examine whether B’s transfer of the instant corporeal movables to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, inasmuch as it was necessary to verify the content of the investigation records by means of the request for the delivery of a certified copy of the investigation records, etc.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment on important matters that may affect a judgment is omitted) in the judgment subject to retrial.

B. As the collection of evidence is responsible for the parties in the litigation proceedings based on the principle of pleading such as civil procedure, the examination of evidence should be conducted only when the parties have applied for evidence, and the examination of evidence may be withdrawn at any time or before the commencement of the examination of evidence by the principle of pleading, and the adoption of the legally withdrawn evidence is unlawful.

According to the records, on June 5, 2013, in the case subject to review, the Plaintiff applied for the commission of the forwarding of a certified copy of the case regarding the violation of the Labor Standards Act against the suspect D by the Suju District Prosecutors' Office 2012 type 6807, which was the case subject to review, but withdrawn the said application on June 25, 2013, and the court of the judgment subject to review did not accept the said application.

Therefore, the court of the judgment subject to review is above.