1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 5,00,000 among the Village Development Fund that was paid by the Suwon District Court 2014Daso-si 8863, Inc. to the Defendant, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 18, 2014, and appealed with Suwon District Court 2014Na39197. However, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 5, 2015, and again appealed with the Plaintiff as the Supreme Court 2015Da35867. However, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal was filed on August 11, 2015, on the ground that the original judgment was clearly recorded or finalized by serving the Plaintiff on August 17, 2015.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the request for retrial

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Defendant’s representative submitted the evidence Nos. 3 (C Village General Meeting Minutes, May 26, 2014), which is a forged document drawn up falsely by E or D, a party to the instant case; (b) the judgment subject to a retrial was based on the evidence of the judgment; and (c) the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which corresponds to “when documents and other items used as evidence for the judgment have been forged or altered.”

B. Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In the case of Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit may be brought in a retrial only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive, or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence.”