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.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a loan or unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 80 million with the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Da10237, and damages for delay from April 7, 2006 (hereinafter “instant claim”).

On October 26, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful against the niversity agreement under each written agreement (Evidence B Nos. 1 and 2; hereinafter “each written agreement of this case”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 12, 2007.

B. On August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed the said judgment as Daejeon District Court 2016Na110404, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

C. Although the Plaintiff appealed against the foregoing judgment by Supreme Court Decision 2017Da263215, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal on December 13, 2017, which became final and conclusive by declaring that the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed due to the failure to hear the case.

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. As to the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, there were attached documents (Evidence No. 4-1) as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial (Evidence No. 4-2) and a statement of agreement execution (Evidence No. 4-2) as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial. However, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when documents and other items as evidence of the judgment were forged or altered). (2) Article 451(1)6 of the said Act provides that “when documents and other items as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered,” the grounds for a retrial may be instituted only in cases where “the judgment of conviction becomes final against the act subject to a punishment or where it is impossible to render a final judgment, etc. of conviction due to lack of evidence” under Article 451(2) of the said Act.