1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

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 Defendants and C seeking payment of the loan of KRW 10 million with the Changwon District Court Decision 2010Da10642, the Changhae District Court Decision 2011, which rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendants on January 20, 201, jointly and severally with C to the Plaintiff, ordering the Defendants to pay KRW 10 million and its delay damages.

B. Accordingly, the Defendants appealed as the Changwon District Court No. 2011Na1914, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Defendants’ appeals on February 20, 2013 (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. After receiving an original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on February 25, 2013, the Defendants appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da24580, but the Defendants’ final appeal was dismissed on June 13, 2013, 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 summary of the Defendants’ assertion made an arbitrary manipulation of documents and filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking payment of the principal and interest of the money borrowed from the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2010 Ghana10642). Although the Defendants sufficiently proved the aforementioned repayment, the said court rendered a judgment accepting all the claims of the Plaintiff, and the court of the judgment subject to a retrial also rendered a judgment to the same effect.

This constitutes a case in which a judge taking part in a trial commits a crime relating to his/her duties, when the false statement by a witness, an expert witness, or an interpreter or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party under an examination of the party concerned is proved as evidence of the judgment, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes an omission of judgment on an important matter that may affect the judgment. As such, the grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1)4, 7,

(b).