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 have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

Plaintiff

In addition, the Appointor (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Incheon District Court No. 2010 Ghana324961, which sought damages due to the tort, and the said court rendered a judgment that accepted the claim of the Plaintiff, etc. on May 4, 2011.

B. The Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the above judgment, appealed to the Incheon District Court 201Na8874, but on May 31, 2012, the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) was rendered.

C. The Defendant appealed to the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Da58494, but the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the final judgment rendered on September 13, 2012.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant’s address and telephone number, the court did not constitute a judgment court as to this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case by public notice. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial as to this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case subject to retrial is defective in the litigation process of the first instance court’s case’s case’s

3) Evidence Nos. 4-1 through 7 (each text message), evidence Nos. 4-4-8 (A’s text message), and evidence Nos. 7 (each record) submitted by the Plaintiff are forged or altered. As such, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial. 4) The Plaintiff made a false statement in the relevant criminal case (Seoul District Court Decision 201Da1627, 201No. 5491) and the false statement was proven as evidence of the instant judgment subject to a retrial.