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 are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

In the Daegu District Court 2014Gau19777, the Plaintiff sought a judgment identical to the purport of the claim between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. On June 25, 2015, the court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 5% per annum from April 4, 2014 to June 25, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.”

B. In Daegu District Court 2015Na10552, the appellate court of the above judgment, the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 24, 2015 (hereinafter “the subject judgment for review”).

C. Supreme Court Decision 2016Da5665 Decided May 12, 2016, which led to the Plaintiff’s final appeal, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal, which became final and conclusive accordingly.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The plaintiff's main intent argues that the judgment subject to a retrial is a mistake of facts and a judgment violating the rules of evidence, such as denying probative value of evidence submitted by the plaintiff and accepting the defendant's assertion without any grounds.

B. A lawsuit on a retrial on a final judgment that became final and conclusive is permitted only when there exist grounds for retrial stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the grounds for a retrial do not constitute such grounds, the lawsuit on retrial is unlawful.

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an error of misconception of facts and a violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment subject to a retrial does not constitute any of the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed as grounds for a retrial that does not constitute grounds for a retrial under the Civil Procedure Act.