1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the confirmation of the authenticity of the deed against the Defendant, Chuncheon District Court, 2014Kadan2176 (hereinafter “the first instance court judgment”), and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on September 3, 2014.

B. On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the above judgment of the court of first instance with the Gangseo-gu District Court 2014Na5545 (hereinafter “the judgment on retrial”), but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2015Da223213, but the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the judgment subject to a retrial on September 10, 2015, thereby became final and conclusive.

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

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a ground for a retrial for omission of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the written contract to establish a collateral security was forged, and that there was a circumstance in which the written application to establish a collateral security was prepared based on such forged document, but did not decide on such assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the final appeal regarding the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. The phrase “when a judgment is omitted with respect to important matters that may affect the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to cases where a party’s attack and defense submitted by the party in a lawsuit, which are not clearly indicated in the reasoning of the judgment.

As long as a judgment has been rendered, even though the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting the allegations of the parties are not individually explained, the decision is not omitted as referred to in the above Article.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da69834 Decided November 27, 2008, etc.).