1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant on June 21, 2012 against the Seoul Central District Court to seek the denial of compulsory execution based on the payment order finalized by the Seoul Central District Court 2002Da17625. The said court (No. 2012Gadan161428) declared the first instance judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on February 13, 2013.

B. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and this Court (2013Na15424) revoked the judgment of the first instance court on November 13, 2013 and declared a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial, and the Supreme Court (2014Da4224) rendered a final judgment dismissing a trial failure on April 24, 2014, and the said judgment reached the Plaintiff on April 30, 2014, became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, on June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case by asserting grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, stating that “when documents and other articles used as evidence for judgment have been forged or altered,” and that “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment” under subparagraph 9 of the same paragraph.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act contains grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the instant judgment subject to a retrial was a document that was forged or altered because the Plaintiff was not involved in the preparation of the said written statement of payment, and thus, the instant judgment subject to a retrial was dismissed by using such false evidence as evidence for the fact-finding of the instant case. As such, the instant judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act exists.

l.p. g., p.