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 a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On March 12, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that E was transferred to the Defendant and C the claim of KRW 40,000,000 which was not repaid out of KRW 200,000,000 lent by E to the Defendant and C, and that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit identical with the above purport of the claim (Korean Government District Court Decision 2012Da18830) and the court of first instance rejected the Defendant and C’s defense of repayment, and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The Defendant and C appealed against this and appealed (the District Court Decision 2012Na12246). The appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal by rejecting the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription additionally (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).

Although Defendant and C appealed against the above judgment, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 12, 2014, which became final and conclusive on June 17, 2014.

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

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that: (a) the instant judgment subject to a retrial falls under the case where: (b) the Defendant did not decide on the Defendant’s assertion that additional repayment had been made even after drawing up a loan certificate on September 30, 2006; and (c) the Defendant’s name constitutes “when omitting any judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (b) the loan certificate (Evidence A) constitutes forged by C; (c) the document and other articles supporting the judgment were forged or altered” under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (c) the F appeared as a witness at the first instance court of the instant judgment subject to a retrial and served as a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or false statement by either party or legal representative by party questioning constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(b) judgment (1).