1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. A lawsuit for a retrial on a final judgment that became final and conclusive as to a ground for retrial is unlawful in a case where it does not fall under the grounds prescribed in Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Next, we examine whether the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff constitute the grounds for commencing a retrial under the Civil Procedure Act.

A. As to the assertion that the document or any other article as evidence for the judgment constitutes Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (the time when the document or any other article as evidence for the judgment has been forged or altered), the Plaintiff asserts that the result of fact-finding on the head of the shipping counter-government, which was evidence for the judgment subject to a retrial, was altered, and that the witness’s testimony was false.

If the Plaintiff seeks to claim grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, he/she shall at the same time prove that the grounds for retrial meet the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. There is no proof of specific content of the grounds for retrial.

In other words, a retrial may not be commenced unless there is a “a final conviction, etc.” to confirm the “act of alteration and perjury, etc.” alleged by the Plaintiff.

(b) As to the assertion that the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act falls under Article 451(1)8 (when a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which forms the basis of a judgment, has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition), the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to cases where a judgment or administrative disposition, which has become a basis of a judgment, legally binding force, or which has become a basis of fact-finding in the final judgment,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12679 delivered on December 14, 2001, etc.). However, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.