1. Of the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the part on grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act is excluded.

1. The following facts are apparent in records:

On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Northern District Court for a payment order claiming the payment of co-ownership share purchase price with the Defendant. On October 14, 2015, the said case was implemented upon the Plaintiff’s application for a lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da14039). On January 22, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment by public notice pursuant to Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim in entirety.

B. On March 8, 2016, the Defendant appealed to the above judgment and filed an appeal to the said court by 2016Na31648, but on January 20, 2017, the instant judgment subject to a retrial was rendered to dismiss the Defendant’s appeal.

Therefore, the Defendant again appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2017Da211207, but was dismissed on March 30, 2017, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The defendant asserts as follows as the grounds for retrial of this case.

(1) The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act exist since the first instance judgment was not legally served on the Defendant and the court rendered a false judgment.

② The Defendant filed as a witness the Plaintiff’s improper N, and the said petition was dismissed.

In this regard, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

③ Although the Defendant submitted five copies of a certificate of personal seal impression for confirmation, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since this part was omitted in the process of determination.

3. Determination

A. For a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act to be recognized as a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act, there should exist the grounds for “not constituting a judgment court under law” in the judgment subject to retrial. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is in the judgment subject to retrial.