1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. Judgment subject to review

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C, and against the Defendant and C, “the Plaintiff filed a suit against the E court 96Gahap3442 with H around 196, and was tried from E court F. At the time, the Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages brought by the Plaintiff in collusion with the senior court clerk C of the competent division in charge at the time of the instant case, and the Plaintiff was unable to appear on the date of the instant case, thereby making the Plaintiff a favorable judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was present at the court on May 16, 1996, the Plaintiff did not appear in the court and prepared the above receipt falsely as if the Plaintiff signed and sealed as the receiver on the receipt of a writ of summons for the alteration date. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not know that H submitted a documentary evidence on the date of the above change of date, and lost part of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay damages of KRW 170 million incurred by the said Plaintiff.”

(hereinafter referred to as "case subject to review"). (b)

On September 23, 2004, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant and C have falsely prepared the receipt of the summons of the changed date, and even if it is acknowledged that the defendant and C have falsely prepared the receipt of the writ of summons of the changed date, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the litigant may file an application for evidence in advance, not only on the date of pleading, but also on the date of pleading, so H received the evidentiary and witness application with the court under the condition that H did not appear on the date of change of date

Even if this does not violate the litigation procedure, the plaintiff was present at the date of pleading on which the court's ruling on evidence of the above motion and the examination of evidence was conducted on May 30, 1996 and was guaranteed the opportunity to state his opinion on the above documentary evidence and the application for witness.