1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

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:

On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Busan District Court Decision 2013Da72817, stating that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 8,710,000 to the Defendant, and the court of first instance rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 29, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against this and filed an appeal with Busan District Court 2013Na20295, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 25, 2014.

C. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2014Da33048 regarding a judgment subject to a retrial, but the Supreme Court, on September 4, 2014, rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff appealed without any reason prescribed in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on September 4, 2014.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around September 2013, the Defendant made a statutory statement that he/she did not use the Plaintiff’s car and used the Plaintiff’s car, and thus, he/she was not liable to pay the usage fee. As such, it constitutes a false statement, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff’s false statement constitutes evidence of the judgment. (2) In a divorce case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Ulsan District Court 2009ddan6585), the Defendant’s witness lost the Plaintiff by perjury and filed a

Therefore, the judgment, based on which the judgment was based, was changed by another judgment, constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The defendant paid a traffic violation fine and motor vehicle tax late, and even if this fact is true, the defendant's use of the motor vehicle is clear.

This part of the judgment subject to a review was omitted.