1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to review is clear in records or obvious to this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants as Busan District Court Decision 2005Kadan11028, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claims on July 26, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance court as Busan District Court 2007Na11757, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 11, 2008 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the appellate court, but on April 14, 2008, the above appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court Decision 2008Da12583, which became final and conclusive on April 17, 2008.

C. On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that: (a) the judgment subject to a retrial was based on the false statement of the witness D of the first instance trial; (b) there were grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (c) the Plaintiff did not recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 4

3. Determination

A. (1) An action for retrial on the assertion shall be brought within 30 days from the date the relevant party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act); and where the grounds for retrial have arisen after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, no action for retrial shall

(Article 456(4) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 456(4) and (3). The Busan District Court rendered a false statement contrary to memory on June 8, 2010 on the summary of the crime that "D had borrowed KRW 13 million from the Plaintiff in a lawsuit subject to review, despite the fact that D borrowed the amount of KRW 13 million from the Plaintiff," sentenced D to a punishment of imprisonment for six months for the said conviction (Seoul District Court Decision 2010No. 873). However, D and the prosecutor appealed against the said conviction, but on November 4, 2010.