1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part concerning the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act is relevant.

The following facts in the course of a case are apparent in the records or significant in this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, including a sales agency fee, with the Suwon District Court KRW 2014Gahap2961, and was sentenced to a dismissal judgment from the said court on July 3, 2015.

The Plaintiff appealed by this Court No. 2015Na21129 (hereinafter “previous appellate court”), but on August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the amount extinguished by the Defendant’s offset, and was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the remainder of appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

The original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on August 24, 2017 on the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2017Da46397, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on January 11, 2018.

On July 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a suit for review of the instant judgment subject to review.

As to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (when documents and other articles as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered), the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the said Act, the sum of KRW 250 million received from the Defendant, which was KRW 90 million on June 30, 2006, KRW 50 million on December 28, 2007, KRW 5 million on January 16, 2008, KRW 45 million on April 28, 2008, KRW 30 million on April 28, 2008, KRW 40 million on July 24, 2008.

b. A check was withdrawn and returned to the Defendant.

The Defendant asserted in the first instance trial that “the Plaintiff returned the above KRW 250 million to the Defendant is to repay the obligation of KRW 313.4 million to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 26.4 million loan amounting to KRW 36.4 million).”

However, the loan certificate of KRW 26.4 million (No. 10-1) and the loan certificate of KRW 30 million (No. 10-2) issued by K to the Defendant is a false document since the Defendant decided to abolish it on December 2015.

Since the plaintiff returned the above KRW 250 million to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the above additional amount to the plaintiff, the previous appellate court is obligated to pay the above additional amount to the plaintiff.