1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

Facts subsequent to the final judgment subject to retrial are significant or obvious in records in this court.

On November 6, 2015, the Daegu District Court 2014Gahap206826 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 6, 2015.

(Judgment of the court of first instance).

On May 11, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance as 2015Na24363.

(Judgment subject to review).

On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23320, but the final appeal was dismissed on August 31, 2017, and the final appeal became final and conclusive as the decision was served on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2017.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s cause of request for retrial is that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant according to the content of the “Agreement on the Import of Vins prescribed in subparagraph 1 (hereinafter “instant import agency contract”),” which was prepared in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant import agency contract”), but the judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as it did not accept Plaintiff’s assertion

However, D and E were indicted on February 3, 2017 by the Daegu District Court 2016Kadan1929 with respect to the fact that they forged the import agency contract of this case, which is the main evidence of the judgment subject to review, and used the forged document, and the judgment on D became final and conclusive around that time, and E became aware of the fact that the appellate trial was in progress under the Daegu District Court 2017No691 upon appeal of the above judgment, and only October 10, 2017, which was the final and conclusive judgment subject to review.

Therefore, since the fact that the import agency contract of this case, which was the evidence of the judgment, was forged, was clearly revealed by the judgment of conviction against D, it was based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.