1. The part against the defendant among the judgment subject to review shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (the defendant in the retrial) against the defendant (the plaintiff in the retrial).

1. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a document or any other article, which has been used as evidence for a judgment, has been forged or altered. "When such forged document, etc. is provided as direct or indirect materials for fact-finding which served as the ground for the order of the judgment, and the court is likely to render a judgment different from the judgment in question if the forged document, etc. were not taken into account the forged document, etc., and there is no probability that the judgment can be recognized, or that the text of the judgment may vary if there is no forged document, etc., or that there is no possibility that the forged document, etc. will change if there is no falsified document, etc., or that there is a circumstance that does not affect the recognition of a major fact, it shall not be grounds for retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da15470, Jul. 25, 1997).

According to the records, the evidence No. 2-3 (the content of the performance guarantee insurance) and the evidence No. 3 (the amount of partial joint and several guarantee insurance) (hereinafter referred to as the "joint and several guarantee document of this case") are provided as direct material supporting the fact that the defendant guaranteed a partial joint and several guarantee, and the court prior to the review rendered a judgment that recognized the defendant's joint and several guarantee liability for the plaintiff based on such provision.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 17 (including each number), the joint and several guarantee documents of this case are documents in the name of the defendant with the digital signature affixed to the certificate issued in the name of the defendant, which are not based on the defendant's intention but request for the provision of forged financial transaction information, etc. by E (the defendant's wife) or by a nameless winner (the defendant's wife), application for transaction, and agricultural e-financial services.