1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are apparent as to the existence of the judgment subject to a retrial:

Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the purchase price claim under this Court No. 2005 Ghana581, the said court was sentenced on April 4, 2006 to “the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim”.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as 2006Na1718, but the appellate court rendered a judgment on April 19, 2007 that “the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed” (the judgment of the first instance prior to the review) and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the judgment of the party prior to the retrial with this court 2007 Jaena192, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial on January 15, 2009, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

The plaintiff filed a suit for new trial as to the judgment of the court before new trial under this court 2009Na11, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the suit for new trial on February 11, 2010 (the judgment of new trial) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant, around November 2002, recommended the plaintiff and C to join as a member of the corporation D, a multi-level distributor of the purchase price, to pay a certain amount of the sales price as an allowance, and only if there are two parties, they shall return all the money paid. Since the plaintiff withdraws from the credit card terminal around February 2003, the defendant is obligated to pay 5720,000 won and damages for delay purchased from D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court (this court) dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and the judgment prior to the retrial (this court 2006Na1718) dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The judgment prior to the retrial (this court 2007NaNa192) and the judgment subject to a retrial (this court 2009NaNa11) also dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that it does not constitute a ground for retrial under any subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.