1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking insurance money against the Defendant by asserting that “the Defendant’s termination of the insurance contract related to the (Non-) LIG Rolus VI Health Insurance (12.04) against the Plaintiff on the ground of violating the duty of disclosure was unlawful,” and the judgment of the first instance court (the judgment of retrial and the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Decision 2016Ga108) rendered on July 22, 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed,” and the reason for the judgment is that the Defendant’s termination of the insurance contract on the ground of the violation of the duty of disclosure by the Plaintiff and the insured, the policyholder, is lawful.

The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 12, 2016, because the plaintiff did not appeal against this.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on forged documents, such as written offer.

3. According to Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, if a document or any other article as evidence for the judgment has been forged or altered, a lawsuit for retrial may be brought against the final judgment established, and pursuant to Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial may be brought only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive for the act subject to punishment, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence is impossible for reasons other than lack of evidence.

If the requirements under Article 451(2) are not satisfied with respect to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the action for retrial itself is unlawful, and thus, it should be dismissed without proceeding to decide whether or not there exists a ground for retrial itself.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29658, Oct. 24, 1989). The judgment subject to a retrial becomes evidence.