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 January 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s aforementioned tort, where the Defendant had been making illegal loans without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s automobile at a intermittent value without permission and appropriated it for the repayment of the loan.

B. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion.

C. Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against this, the appellate court rendered the instant judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal in determining to the same purport as the judgment of the first instance.

Although the plaintiff appealed against this, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da24826 Decided December 15, 2016). The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

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

A. On May 2001, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to hear the purport that only the interest on the loan was paid by the Defendant’s employee while purchasing a car at a discount rate, and that the principal was paid at any time when the Plaintiff wants to repay the loan or return the vehicle. Unlike the horses above, the Defendant did not extend the term of the loan after one year, and received a new loan by means of equal repayment of principal and interest with the Defendant’s wife as the principal obligor and the Defendant as the surety. The Defendant and the Defendant’s wife sold the said car at a discount price and appropriated the loan with the Defendant’s wife, who did not pay the above loan, and without notifying the Plaintiff of the above sale price, it was unlawful to prepare a notarial deed as to the amount larger than the amount the Plaintiff has to pay.