1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. A specific Plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Busan District Court Decision 2013Ga7531, Busan District Court Decision 2013Da7531, which ruled against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2013. The Plaintiff appealed as Busan District Court Decision 2013Na44345, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 17, 2014 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), but the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 17, 2014 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). The fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on August 6, 2014 is obvious in records

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

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's assertion that since the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership to the real estate of this case by using the plaintiff's seal imprint design without the plaintiff's consent, they constitute grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Determination 1) Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when documents and other articles used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered,” the grounds for retrial may be prescribed as follows: Provided, That in the case of paragraph (1) 4 through 7, Article 451(2) of the same Act provides that “if a judgment of conviction or judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, a lawsuit may be brought for retrial.” Therefore, if the requirements under Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act are not satisfied as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(2) of the same Act, the action for retrial itself is unlawful, and thus, the facts constituting legitimate requirements under Article 451(2) of the same Act must be proved by the parties who have brought a lawsuit for retrial under Article 451(1)4 through 7 (2) of the same Act.