1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review.

A. On February 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of the amount of the check to be collected at the time of the Defendant’s request on the ground that foreign checks requested to be collected by the Defendant were in default due to an endorsement; and on June 9, 2011, the court rendered the judgment of the first instance of this case that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 16,266.80 U.S. dollars and 20% per annum from January 11, 2011 to the date of full payment.”

(Seoul Northern District Court 201Kadan8736).(b)

On September 30, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Court rendered an appeal against the judgment of first instance, and rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

(Court 201Na5729), c.

The Defendant, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 201Da91890, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal on January 12, 2012, and thereby, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on January 31, 2012.

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

A. The judgment subject to the judgment by the Defendant’s argument was not classified into purchase and collection of foreign currency checks in foreign exchange transactions and was transferred to the Defendant for all responsibility related to the collection of forged foreign currency checks. Although the Defendant asserted such circumstance at the time of the judgment subject to the judgment, and presented evidence, such as the U.S. Check Act, the judgment was not made properly.

Therefore, there is a ground for retrial as to the instant judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment”.

B. Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment,” the grounds for retrial are stipulated. However, a lawsuit for retrial is instituted on the other hand.