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, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit claiming that the Defendants jointly and severally liable for damages arising from tort against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendants conspired with the Defendant, C, D, and Arenals Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Defendants”), and caused the Plaintiff to enter into a siren contract with the Plaintiff on December 11, 2006, and caused the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 47,323,139, a sum of the rental fees, 6,000, which is the difference between the rental fees and the second rental fee of KRW 40,723,139, which is the difference between the Defendant and the second rental fee of KRW 40,723,139, and the said Defendants were jointly and severally liable for damages arising from tort. However, this court (the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on February 28, 2013) rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claim on December 13, 2013 (the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed).

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, since the Defendant submitted as evidence an import and tax invoice for another reproduction rather than for the reproduction of the instant reproduction, and the instant judgment subject to retrial dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim by using such false evidence as evidence concerning the fact-finding.

Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the time when documents and other articles used as evidence for judgment have been forged or altered are grounds for retrial. However, Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the same Act shall be punished.