1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part that constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act is limited.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent or apparent to this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking damages related to the Plaintiff’s conviction (Seoul District Court 2007Ma1448, Jeonju District Court 2010Kahap7200, and the Plaintiff’s sales proceeds of rice or rice sold to Defendant B, or the agreed amount and the Defendant B related thereto, in the Plaintiff’s criminal case (former District Court 2003No1236).

The court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the agreement is not effective, or the claim for the agreed amount and the claim for the purchase price expires by prescription, and that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered losses due to the perjury

B. On this issue, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court (former note 2012Na247) and modified the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in the appellate court to add claims for damages caused by the Defendants’ deceptive act.

The above court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff’s appeal and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants added in the appellate court (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).

On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was served with an authentic copy of the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

C. The Plaintiff again appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da72336, but on December 26, 2013, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's assertion has the money to be received from the defendants.

The Defendants or related persons conspired to commit criminal acts, such as fraud, embezzlement, or fabrication of private documents, and the Plaintiff was punished by the Defendants’ criminal acts despite the absence of such crimes.

In related criminal cases, investigative agencies have performed their duties, conspired with related persons, including the defendants, and made a wrong conclusion without properly conducting investigations.

Accordingly, the court has made a wrong judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and it is not ordered to make a reinvestigation.