The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).

purport, purport, ..

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

As Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da32488, the Plaintiff claimed for the reimbursement of insurance proceeds against Defendant C and B, and the revocation and restitution of fraudulent act against Defendant D. On May 31, 2018, the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and B and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant D.

B. On April 24, 2019, the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and B filed an appeal with the Seoul Central District Court 2018Na40821, against each losing part, and the said court revoked the part regarding Defendant D among the judgment of the first instance on April 24, 2019 and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and dismissed the appeal by Defendant C and B (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

C. The Defendants and B appealed and filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2019Da232048. However, on September 10, 2019, the lower judgment was final and conclusive on September 16, 2019.

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

A. The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is F, not B, the parties who entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and thus, it is not effective that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor notified the termination of the subcontract to B, and the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor insurance money in accordance with the guarantee insurance contract

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against Defendant C and B or the claim for advance indemnity (the obligee’s right of revocation) has been established.

Defendant C was not in excess of the debt, and Defendant D was a bona fide transferee.

In addition, the judgment subject to a retrial was assessed excessively by admitting the market price of the real estate in this case as the fact that there is no dispute.

As such, the judgment subject to review omitted judgment on important matters that could affect the judgment, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.