1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and B seeking payment of KRW 10,000,000 for loans and delayed damages therefor with the Jinwon District Court Decision 2009Gau22891, and the said court rendered a favorable judgment on July 8, 2010.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant and B appealed with the Changwon District Court 2010Na8291, but the above court accepted the defense of extinctive prescription period B against B on September 11, 2012 and revoked the judgment of the first instance and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal against the Defendant by rejecting the Defendant’s defense of payment (hereinafter “the judgment of retrial”).

C. On September 18, 2012, the Defendant served an original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial, and thereafter appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da93473, but on February 14, 2013, the Defendant’s final appeal was dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on the same day.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Defendant asserts that there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6, 8, and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “Act”), such as where there is inconsistency with the judgment in the judgment subject to a retrial, and where there is omission in the determination as to the completion of extinctive prescription for a commercial matter, etc.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, since there was an agreement between the original defendant and the original defendant after the decision subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court, the instant petition for a retrial is unlawful against the said agreement.

B. Determination 1 of this Court) In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant, based on the existence of the non-committee agreement, Eul’s evidence Nos. 27 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive in the Supreme Court (No. 2012Da93473, Feb. 14, 2013) (No. 2012Da93572, No. 93589, Apr. 11, 2013) by the Supreme Court (No. 2012Da93572, No. 93589, Apr. 16, 2013).