The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of Changwon District Court No. 2014Gaso11242, claiming the amount of the use of credit cards and damages for delay thereof, and the said court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 3, 2014.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed by the Changwon District Court No. 2015Na30392, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on July 2, 2015 (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da233500, but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the final appeal was dismissed on November 27, 2015.

2. Judgment on the grounds for retrial asserted by the Defendant

A. The defendant asserts that there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when documents or other articles used as evidence of a judgment have been forged or altered), and Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party examination becomes evidence of a judgment) in the judgment subject to retrial.

However, under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence. without satisfying such requirements, a lawsuit for retrial that asserts grounds for retrial under each of the above subparagraphs is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da1678, Feb. 3, 2017). It is proved that the defendant alleged that the above grounds for retrial by the defendant meet the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.