All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

The cost of retrial shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the litigation of this case.

1. In order to file a lawsuit for a retrial against a judgment of the court of final appeal, the litigation proceedings or judgment of the court of final appeal must have the grounds provided in each subparagraph of Article 451(1)

The court of final appeal shall not hold a position of fact-finding unless it is a matter of ex officio investigation, but it is only the determination of evidence and the legitimacy of fact-finding by the second instance court which is a fact-finding court, and the facts duly confirmed by the fact-finding

Therefore, as to the forgery and alteration of the documentary evidence under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for fact-finding itself, as long as it does not relate to the matters to be examined ex officio, shall not be considered as a ground for retrial against the judgment of the court of final appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da885, Jun. 14, 2012). In this case, the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs for review)’s ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act does not relate to the fact-finding as to the matters to be examined ex officio in the final appeal, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial.

2. Furthermore, a lawsuit for retrial on a final judgment which has become final and conclusive is permitted only when a prescribed legal ground exists. In a case where the ground alleged by the plaintiff for retrial does not fall under such ground, the

(See Supreme Court Decisions 83Da22 delivered on March 27, 1984; 87DaDa24 delivered on December 8, 1987, etc.). The remaining grounds for retrial asserted by the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) are erroneous in matters of law, such as incomplete deliberation or deviation from the limitation on the exercise of the right to explanation. Such grounds for retrial do not constitute grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in entirety because it is unlawful, and the costs of the retrial shall be borne by the losing party, including the part resulting from the participation in the lawsuit.