The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be assessed against the defendant (the plaintiff, the selected party) and the selected party.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

In the Jeonju District Court 2013Kadan350 case between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the above court rendered a judgment that fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants on June 14, 2013.

B. In the judgment of Jeonju District Court 2013Na5681, the appellate court of the above judgment, the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment dismissing all the appeals filed by the Defendants on October 17, 2013 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

The original copy of the instant judgment subject to a retrial was served on December 19, 2013 on the Defendants.

C. On December 31, 2013, the Defendants appealed on a judgment subject to a retrial, but withdrawn a final appeal on January 22, 2014, and accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on January 3, 2014.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial of the Defendants’ assertion

A. There are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial based on the summary of the Defendants’ assertion.

On August 31, 1993, the Jeonbuk Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Jeonbuk Bank”) committed a tort of arbitrarily using KRW 15,000,000, which was deposited by a mutual savings bank without passbook from the mutual savings bank.

Attached Form

The secured claim of the right to collateral security established on the list of real estate is not set off against the damage claim arising from the tort of the previous bank.

The Jeonbuk Bank was a person of the above facts.

Nevertheless, the original decision dismissed the Defendants’ appeal without considering the aforementioned persons of the previous North Bank.

B. Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for the grounds for retrial for “when the false statement by a witness, expert witness, interpreter, or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party’s examination or by the legal representative has become evidence of the judgment”

In addition, Article 451 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act is guilty of the act subject to punishment in the case of Article 451 (1) (4) through (7).