The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff and the plaintiff for retrial).

The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On January 17, 2019, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing each of the rest of the plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim.

Although the defendant appealed against the above judgment, the court of the trial before the retrial rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's appeal on November 27, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment on review").

Although the defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on April 9, 2020, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around that time.

Inasmuch as the testimony of K by a witness who was used as evidence of an original judgment based on a summary of the Defendant’s argument regarding the legitimacy of the instant suit for retrial is false, there exists grounds for retrial falling under “when the false statement by a witness becomes evidence of the judgment” under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the

Judgment

Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “A lawsuit may be brought in a retrial only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive on an act subject to punishment in the case of Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be made for reasons other

Therefore, in order to claim the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for retrial should be asserted and proved together with the fact that the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act have been satisfied,

A lawsuit seeking a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act without satisfying the requirements is unlawful.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da1678, Feb. 3, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial. However, the Plaintiff is a party before K’s retrial.