1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, filed a claim against the Defendant for unjust enrichment by this Court No. 201534, and this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 17, 2012, and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time is significant

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made by changing the amount of KRW 5,240,000 on November 19, 1998 to KRW 15,240,00,000 in the auction case of the plaintiff's real estate and unjust enrichment of KRW 17,515,616 in the auction case of the plaintiff's real estate.

However, the original judgment dismissed the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that there is insufficient evidence that the loan certificate was altered.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial that constitutes a forgery or alteration of documents and other articles, which served as evidence for the judgment under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, in the judgment subject to retrial.

B. Where a person asserts that Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a document or any other article as evidence of the judgment has been forged or altered) is a ground for retrial, a lawsuit for retrial may be filed only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence has become final for an act subject to punishment pursuant to Article 451(2) of the same Act, or when a final judgment of conviction or a final judgment of imposition of a fine

In the case of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the judgment of conviction against the alteration of the loan certificate was finalized, or that the conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, the request for retrial of this case is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's request for retrial is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair by dismissing the lawsuit of this case, but it is recognized that the court of first instance has been examined to the extent that it can render a judgment on the merits in the first instance court. Therefore, it is not remanded to the court of first instance pursuant to the proviso of