1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are clear in records or significant in this court:

On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking damages on August 6, 2015, and joined the instant lawsuit as a counterclaim.

On October 4, 2016, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that partly accepted the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining main claim of the main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim claim.

Seoul Central District Court 2014dan5320851, 2015dan5282147 (Counterclaim))

Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2016Na68030 (principal lawsuit), 2016Na68047 (Counterclaim), but the above court dismissed all appeals on the Defendant’s principal lawsuit and counterclaim on June 9, 2017 (hereinafter “the judgment on retrial”) and the judgment on July 4, 2017 became final and conclusive.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The Defendant asserts that there was an error in the judgment subject to a retrial, since the Plaintiff’s employee testified as a witness and testified fraudulently, as the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act were asserted.

(2) In the case of Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, a retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be made for reasons other than lack of evidence.

(Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, there was a final and conclusive judgment of conviction as to the false statement (No. 7) by the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone.

A final and conclusive judgment of conviction for reasons other than lack of evidence shall not be recognized as impossible.

Therefore, the part on the ground of Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act among the lawsuits for retrial of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the lawful requirements for retrial.

B. Grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act