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 are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the refusal of compulsory execution based on the notarial deeds No. 2196 and No. 2197 of the 2005 Deed No. 2197 of the 2005 Deed No. 2196 and No. 2005 of the 2005 Deed (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deeds of the Promissory Notes”) against the Defendant (U.S. District Court Branch Branch 2014Gahap716), and was sentenced to the judgment accepting the above claim by the said court.

B. On February 13, 2015, the Defendant appealed to the above judgment and appealed to this court 2014Na47704, but was sentenced to the instant judgment subject to a retrial that the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s appeal from this court.

C. After that, the Defendant filed a petition of appeal against the instant judgment subject to a retrial. However, on April 13, 2015, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on March 10, 2015, on the grounds that the Defendant was ordered to dismiss the petition of appeal on April 13, 2015 on the grounds that the Defendant did not comply with the order even after receiving the order to correct the stamp on the petition of appeal.

On March 17, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case.

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

A. As to whether there exists a cause for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, one of the Defendant’s arguments conferred a power to commission D to prepare a promissory note Notarial Deed in order to secure the Defendant’s obligation against the Defendant. The instant promissory note No. notarial deed is valid as it commissions D to prepare it within the scope of the power of attorney granted by C.

In determining the validity of the notarial deed of this case, the judgment subject to a retrial was omitted in the judgment of the Changwon District Court 2008Gahap5974, which was submitted by the Defendant, and this constitutes “when the judgment was omitted with respect to important matters affecting the judgment,” and thus, Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act is applicable to the judgment subject to a retrial.