1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. According to the records of this case’s determination of the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for the payment of goods with the resident resident support of the Daegu District Court 2013Kadan1319, and was sentenced to the Plaintiff’s winning judgment on August 14, 2013, and appealed with the Defendant’s appeal as the Daegu District Court 2013Na14383, May 22, 2014, and the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on May 22, 2014 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), and thereafter, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court 2014Da35662, but the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the final judgment subject to a retrial on July 24,

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff submitted a contract (Evidence A No. 1) that is a forged or altered evidence in a case subject to review, and rendered a judgment subject to review based on this, and there was a ground for retrial as stipulated in Article 451 subparag. 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive for an act subject to punishment in cases falling under Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be made for reasons other than lack of evidence.”

However, when the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act are to prevent the harm of the other party’s lawsuit and the requirements under Article 451(2) are not satisfied, the lawsuit for retrial, which is based on the relevant grounds, is unlawful. Thus, the grounds for retrial under subparagraphs 4 through 7, must be dismissed without examining whether or not there exists any grounds for retrial under subparagraphs 4

Furthermore, the facts constituting legitimate requirements under Paragraph 2 should be proved by the party who filed a lawsuit for retrial under Item 4 or 7.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29658 delivered on October 24, 1989, etc.).