The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation of KRW 78,000,000, based on a loan agreement against the Defendant on August 25, 2014. The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 4, 2015.

B. On January 15, 2016, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “on August 25, 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a loan agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “this case’s loan agreement”) was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to lend KRW 78 million to the Plaintiff as security (the payment method of the loan was to be paid to the new bank account in the name of G) and the loan, other than stamp, was paid to the Plaintiff via the said G account.” However, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “the grounds for denying the validity of the said loan agreement are not recognized” (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff was served with the judgment subject to a retrial. The Plaintiff did not file an appeal within the period of appeal, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 4, 2016.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. There are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff as follows.

① The Defendant did not submit the evidentiary documents of the certificate of transfer that transferred the loan to G, and there was no ex officio investigation thereon, and the judgment was omitted on the establishment of the valid loan agreement of this case.

② Although the terms and conditions of the instant loan stipulate that a vehicle seller shall directly pay the loan, the Defendant urged several times to prove the violation of the said provision, but omitted the judgment.

③ G as an unentitled person under the instant loan agreement.