1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The plaintiff in the judgment subject to a review has lent KRW 30,00,00 to the defendants. The defendants filed a lawsuit against the defendants claiming a loan of KRW 13,00,000 via D or under the defendants' joint and several sureties, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing only KRW 8,59,160 among the plaintiff's claims on July 26, 2007, and the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on January 11, 2008 (hereinafter "the judgment subject to a review") but the court of appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on January 11, 2008 (hereinafter "the judgment subject to a review") by the Supreme Court of Korea as the Supreme Court Decision 2008Da12583, Apr. 14, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts and non-satisfys in this Court

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the judgment subject to a retrial was based on ① the Plaintiff’s submission as evidence of the fact of repayment of the instant loan, and ② the Defendants did not recognize the remainder of KRW 4,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) with the Plaintiff’s direct lending of KRW 26,00,000. This asserted to the effect that, in addition to the instant loan, the Defendants also borrowed KRW 4,00,000 from the Plaintiff as well as the instant loan, the Plaintiff submitted as evidence of the fact of payment of the instant loan amounting to KRW 3,00,00 ( KRW 1,000,000 in cash, KRW 3,000 in check, KRW 3,00,000, KRW 13,000 in joint and several sureties or the Defendants’ joint and several sureties, and thus, D was punished as a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. First, we examine whether there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in relation to the portion of KRW 4,000,000 among the instant loans.

Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.