The plaintiff (Plaintiffs for review) shall dismiss the lawsuit for review by the plaintiff (Plaintiffs for review).

The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s petition for retrial is dismissed.

1. According to the records as to the legitimacy of the litigation filed by the Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff) against the Defendant, the part of Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff) D in the lawsuit for damages filed by the Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff) against the Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kadan21960, which was concluded on September 21, 2012 as the withdrawal of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff) and filed an appeal with the same court No. 2012 or 13328, which was concluded on September 21, 2012, but was concluded as the withdrawal of the appeal by the said court on September 5, 2013, and again filed a petition for final appeal by the Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff). However, on December 10, 2013, the said court dismissed the petition for final appeal filed by the Plaintiff (Reopening Plaintiff) and filed the petition for final and conclusive as is.

Therefore, the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs)’s lawsuit for review of this case filed by a person who is not a party to the judgment subject to review is unlawful.

2. In order to file a lawsuit for a retrial against the judgment of the court of final appeal rendered on the Plaintiff (Plaintiff)’s petition for retrial, the legal proceedings of the court of final appeal or the judgment must have the grounds provided in each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of

The court of final appeal shall not hold a position of fact-finding unless it is a matter of ex officio investigation, but it is only the determination of evidence and the legitimacy of fact-finding by the second instance court which is a fact-finding court, and the facts duly confirmed by the fact-finding

Therefore, the facts related to the forgery and alteration of the documentary evidence under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act are related to the forgery and alteration of the documentary evidence under Article 451 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, or as to the false statement of a party or legal representative under the newspaper of the party concerned, the grounds for fact-finding itself, unless it relates to the matters to be examined ex officio, shall not

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1353, Feb. 12, 2015). In this case, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act of the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs for Retrial) are relevant to the fact-finding of the matters to be examined ex officio by the Supreme Court.