1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records:

On July 9, 2010, the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Da15329 (principal lawsuit), 2009Gadan27490 (Counterclaim), which rendered a judgment of the first instance that partially accepted the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim.

B. On November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed as the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju), 2010Na1440 (Cheongju), and (Cheongju), 2010Na1457 (Counterclaim). On November 15, 2010, the above court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial with the purport that the part of winning the Defendant regarding the damages for delay among the judgment of the first instance was revoked, and that the judgment was revoked, and that both appeals are dismissed.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2010Da106016, 2010Da106023 (Counterclaim), but the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on February 10, 201, and the original judgment was served on February 14, 201 and became final and conclusive on the same day.

2. On the grounds delineated below by the Defendant, the judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked, and the Defendant’s request for retrial should be accepted.

There is no negligence on the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, there is no evidence of king, and now the Defendant is receiving medical treatment on the part of the injury caused by the instant traffic accident, and there still remains a residual disability.

Nevertheless, the judgment subject to a retrial is based on the physical appraisal document (written evidence No. 1, No. 2, and this is not a result of the first instance court’s appraisal or entrustment of appraisal, but a document directly submitted by the Defendant; hereinafter “the instant diagnosis document”) prepared by H of the Chungcheong University Hospital on February 20, 209 to the effect that “the document and any other article used as evidence for the judgment has been forged or altered” under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Subparag. 7 are deemed to have been forged or altered.