1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts in the judgment subject to a retrial are significant and acceptable to this court:

On August 5, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages claim against the Ulsan District Court 2008Gaso81650, and was sentenced to a judgment against the said court on July 14, 2009.

B. Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed as the Ulsan District Court 2009Na3975 on November 19, 2009, and the appellate court rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on the ground that "the defendant fabricated evidence in the loan claim case No. 91 Ghana 9568 of Busan District Court Busan District Court, which caused the plaintiff to be ruled against the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant made the plaintiff to be detained in the case of attempted fraud, etc. in the above support No. 92Kadan1866, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant made the plaintiff to be detained." The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2009.

2. The Plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the instant suit for retrial, did not properly determine the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds that the judgment subject to retrial was erroneous and thus, there was a ground for retrial that constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the ground cited by the plaintiff as the ground for retrial of this case is merely that the judgment subject to retrial of this case did not recognize the plaintiff's assertion, and it does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful

[A] When a civil or criminal judgment or other judgment or a sentence disposition, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to a retrial, was altered by a different judgment or administrative disposition (see Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act), the Plaintiff appears to have asserted to the effect that there was a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the judgment subject to a retrial has such ground for retrial.