1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a beneficiary of the Military Pension, has faithfully repaid the G Bank loans obligations by means of automatic transfer from the above bank account while obtaining the Military Pension in the G Bank account.

At the request of the plaintiff on February 2019, the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2019Tari No. 51719, and the collection order was issued later.

Therefore, the defendant pointed out that the plaintiff and G Bank are not responsible for the repayment of the claim for the above collection order, and urged the preparation of resolution measures, but the person in charge did not solve any problem only with the intention of avoiding the responsibility between the parties.

Accordingly, around June 25, 2019, the defendant submitted a written objection to the Seoul Eastern District Court, but was dismissed, and only during the process of raising a new objection, the new trial system became known, and it was examined whether there are grounds for requesting a new trial in the judgment subject to new trial.

As above, the Defendant did not file an appeal because it was unaware of the grounds for omission of judgment that existed in the judgment subject to a retrial (Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act), and subsequently, filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case by becoming aware of the system for retrial at the latest, which constitutes a special circumstance where the Defendant does not regard the starting point of the period for retrial as the time when

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the lawsuit of retrial of this case on the ground that it did not comply with the period for filing the petition.

B. In addition, the original judgment rejected the Defendant’s assertion solely on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion against the Defendant’s non-existence of obligation is inconsistent with the res judicata, but the effect of res judicata or res judicata is merely the purport of recognizing the forfeiture effect on the means of attack and defense which could have been submitted to prevent the inconsistency of the judgment.