1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, such as the confirmation of a judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on October 14, 2015 by a notary public C belonging to the Incheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office against the Defendant seeking the denial of compulsory execution of a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement for loan for security (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) signed by a notary public of the Incheon Public Prosecutor’s Office (No. 356), No. 356, Oct. 14, 2015 (Seoul District Court 2016No. 19502), and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 24,

B. On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed (In Incheon District Court 2017Na64142), and the court of the second instance revoked the judgment of the first instance on June 28, 2018 and rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim.

(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.

The Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2018Da256085). However, on October 1, 2018, the final appeal was dismissed and finalized on October 1, 2018.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The Defendant’s assertion D had a letter of waiver of the right to store, a letter of waiver of store, and a letter of power of attorney, on which the Plaintiff’s seal imprint is affixed for the use of money borrowed. The Plaintiff directly held a seal imprint D and sent the instant notarial deed to the prisoner of war via Otoba, when preparing the instant notarial deed in contact with D.

In addition, the defendant remitted the loan to the plaintiff's passbook and the plaintiff was also aware of the deposit.

Ultimately, the plaintiff was aware of the fact that a notarial deed was prepared in advance about the borrowed money.

In addition, the Plaintiff continued to engage in the same work as D without filing a complaint against confinement and public conflict, asserting that the Plaintiff conspiredd with the Defendant and D created a loan, and detained and contributed the Plaintiff. Rather, the Plaintiff, in collusion with D, deceiving the Defendant and lent money.

Nevertheless, the adjudication division of the decision subject to a review has the Plaintiff’s seal impression.