1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial are assessed against the defendant (a consolidated plaintiff and a plaintiff for retrial).

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:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking a brokerage commission under the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch 2016Gaso3911 (the instant case). During the said lawsuit, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking a brokerage commission under the above court 2016Gaso7418

(Consolidated Case) On May 25, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a joint hearing of two lawsuits, and rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the plaintiff against the principal case and the claims of the defendant against the principal case.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed to the part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, and appealed as this Court 2017Na3011, 2017Na3028 (merged), and this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed all the Defendant’s appeal on February 6, 2018.

C. On May 30, 2018, the Defendant appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2018Da21975, 2018Da21982, which was dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, but the appeal was dismissed on May 30, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the judgment subject to a retrial is not verified, and that “The distribution ratio of brokerage commission between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is 7:3, and that the Plaintiff claims the payment of the distribution amount to the Defendant on May 4, 2016, after receiving the brokerage commission.” The evidence No. 4 (Recording) is an uncertified document, and is likely to have been forged or altered.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

B. Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In the case of paragraph (1) 4 through 7, when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or for reasons other than lack of evidence.”