1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

The Defendant posted a letter related to the work that had been in the World Cup stadium in C Jeon-ju online newspaper bulletin board, thereby impairing the honor of the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant tort”). B.

On September 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the damages of KRW 70 million due to the instant tort and damages for delay. On April 27, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 300,000 and damages for delay.”

C. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the foregoing judgment of the first instance, and filed an appeal with this Court No. 201Na3926, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) on February 23, 2012, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da29199). The judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on May 24, 2012.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment are as follows: the defendant interfered with official duties, insult, accusation, attack, threat, etc. in addition to the tort in this case; the defendant suffered from stress-related disease to the plaintiff; although litigation costs, deposit costs, transportation costs, cancer treatment costs, etc. were incurred, the judgment subject to a retrial recognized only KRW 300,000 as consolation money for mental damage caused by the tort in this case, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked.

A lawsuit for retrial on a final and conclusive judgment shall be permitted only when there are grounds for retrial stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the grounds for a retrial do not constitute such grounds, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996). The Plaintiff’s assertion above is concerned.