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, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant for tort as Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap539206, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 23, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff appealed to this Court as 2014Na204015. However, on March 20, 2015, the said court rendered a ruling dismissing both the Plaintiff’s appeal and the claim extended by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant judgment on review”). On March 26, 2015, the original judgment was served on the Plaintiff on March 26, 2015, and the Plaintiff did not file an appeal and became final and conclusive on April 10, 2015.

C. On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that B deceptioned the Plaintiff on June 22, 2012, the appeal was withdrawn from the final appeal of the Seoul East Eastern District Court case No. 2010Gohap375 (Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6850) and the judgment of conviction against B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the forgery of private documents, and the uttering of a falsified investigation document became final and conclusive.

Therefore, it is erroneous to the extent that it is impossible to recognize rationality in light of the empirical rule and logical rule that public officials belonging to the defendant did not take a non-prosecution disposition against B is a waiver of their duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment subject to a retrial was judged against the above final conviction without thoroughly disregarding and rejecting all supporting materials submitted by the Plaintiff.

This constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a judgment that rendered a final judgment prior to the filing of a new trial is inconsistent with a final judgment.”

B. The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are established to coordinate conflict between res judicata effect of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment subject to retrial. Therefore, the said provision is applicable.