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 became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the court of first instance for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 7,184,140 to the Defendant, but the Defendant raised an objection against the said payment order.

Accordingly, on July 23, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting all the plaintiff's claims.

(hereinafter “instant judgment”). The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court of this case, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on April 26, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial.” Although the Defendant appealed against the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s final appeal on August 17, 2016 (2016Da22677), the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds for a retrial of KRW 5,00,000, the Defendant paid five copies of the KRW 1,000 Check to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2012.

With respect to the certificate of loan of KRW 2,184,140, the defendant has a claim for the payment of KRW 9,400,000 from the plaintiff. Thus, if a set-off is made against the plaintiff's above loan claims with the above claim for sales allowance of KRW 2,184,140, the plaintiff's claim for the loan does not exist any longer, and rather, the plaintiff shall pay the sales allowance of KRW 7,215,860 (=9,40,000 - 2,184,140) remaining after set-off

Nevertheless, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 or 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for loans worth KRW 7,184,140.

3. As to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the legitimacy of a retrial suit, Article 451(1)7 of the same Act refers to the false statement by a witness, appraiser, or interpreter.