1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The defendant, on November 26, 1998, filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for a retrial by the Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court Decision 98Gahap16034 delivered on November 26, 1998, which rendered the same court as the original decision for a retrial. However, on June 13, 2008, the same court rendered a ruling that "the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed" on June 13, 2008, and the defendant appealed as the court 2008Na61075 delivered on January 14, 2009, and this court rendered a ruling that "the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the lawsuit for a retrial based on the grounds for a retrial added in the trial shall be dismissed," and it is evident that the above ruling became final and conclusive at that time.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The defendant stated in the police statement on April 25, 2006, and on July 27, 2006, that "the plaintiff knew non-party D and provided non-party K with the purchase price of a taxi." The judgment subject to a retrial is contrary to Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1468 Decided April 9, 2009, which ruled that "the plaintiff purchased the automobile of this case from Non-party D, a representative." The judgment subject to a retrial is contrary to Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1468 Decided April 9, 2009, that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the same Act are established to coordinate conflict between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment, and "where a final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment is in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment," refers to cases where the effect of the final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment affects the parties to the judgment subject to retrial, and even if the final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment concerns a case similar to that of the judgment subject to retrial, if the res judicata effect of the judgment does not affect the parties concerned, the above grounds for retrial do not constitute