1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring district court, as the Suwon District Court Branch 2010Gahap3510, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim with the same court 201Gahap2637 seeking the payment of guaranteed debts. On April 28, 2011, the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and rendered a judgment citing the Defendant’s counterclaim.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed from this Court No. 2011Na4194 (Main Lawsuit), 41200 (Counterclaim), but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that all appeals against the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and counterclaims were dismissed on November 3, 2011.

On November 7, 2011, the Plaintiff served a certified copy of the original judgment subject to a retrial, and subsequently appealed with Supreme Court Decision 201Da103953 (principal suit) and 103960 (Counterclaim), but on February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as is.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not only adopted as evidence the false testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial, but also omitted the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant violated the duty to explain limited probation guarantee, did not inform the Plaintiff of the current status of the loan, and participated in the deception of the B.

b) Article 451 (1) 7 (when a false statement by a witness becomes evidence of a judgment) and 9 (when a judgment is omitted on important matters that affect a judgment, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff asserts grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Judgment

1) According to Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act include “when the false statements by a witness, expert witness, or interpreter, or the false statements by a party or legal representative based on the party examination, become evidence of the judgment” as grounds for retrial. However, even in this case, Article 451(2) of the same Act.