1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim against the U.S. District Court Decision 2016Kadan1266, and the said court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on July 8, 2016, which was appealed by the Plaintiff as the same court 2016Na2888. However, the said court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 12, 2017, and the Plaintiff served an authentic copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on January 16, 2017 and rendered a final and conclusive judgment subject to a retrial on February 1, 2017 is apparent in

2. A lawsuit for a retrial on the legitimacy of a lawsuit for retrial of this case shall be brought within 30 days from the date the party becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the existence of grounds for retrial, such as omitting a judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the same Act, can be seen by read the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial, unless there are special grounds to the contrary. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the party was aware of the existence of grounds for retrial at the time the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial was served. If a judgment becomes final and conclusive after that,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da33930, Sept. 28, 1993). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the facts that the instant case became a health care unit and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017 are as seen earlier, and the grounds for a retrial for omitting a judgment alleged by the Plaintiff were known at the time of the final and conclusive judgment subject to a retrial

However, on December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case on which 30 days had passed from that time, and the period for filing the petition was set.

Therefore, the part concerning the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful among the lawsuits for retrial of this case.

In addition, there are other grounds for retrial, and the grounds for retrial asserted by the plaintiff are erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment subject to retrial.