1. All of the lawsuits seeking damages amounting to KRW 150,00, extended in the litigation and retrial of this case are dismissed.

2.

1. The Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for damages (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) with the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 201AB244, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. Although the Plaintiff appealed in this Court No. 2011Na15535, this Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal and rendered a judgment citing the counterclaim of the claim for damages (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) filed by the Defendant at the appellate court as 2011Na19681 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), the fact that the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive is apparent as the Plaintiff’s final and conclusive appeal was dismissed.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the grounds for retrial

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. 1) Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a document as evidence for the judgment is forged or altered, and Article 451(2) of the same Act provides that a lawsuit for retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence is impossible due to lack of evidence. Thus, a lawsuit for retrial is unlawful if the requirements under Article 451(1)6 of the same Act are not satisfied with respect to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(2) of the same Act.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was guilty or that the Defendant was convicted due to this, this does not constitute grounds for retrial in light of the above legal doctrine.

3. Determination as to whether the part concerning the claim for damages of KRW 150,000, expanded from the retrial is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion is the defendant.