1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. The Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, such as a loan, etc., with the Ulsan District Court 2013 Ghana4631, and the Ulsan District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 13, 2015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2015Na526, but this Court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the ruling on review”).

In other words, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da5610, but was dismissed, which became final and conclusive on May 16, 2016.

2. Determination as to the request for retrial

A. The plaintiff's assertion that "the plaintiff lent 3.5 million won to the defendant, and the defendant caused damages to the plaintiff by making a false report, and the defendant is obligated to pay 4 million won to the plaintiff as a loan and compensation for damages. Nevertheless, since the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment on the above argument by the plaintiff, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act."

B. (1) According to Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial shall be instituted within 30 days from the date the party to the lawsuit becomes final and conclusive and the grounds for retrial become known. If an original copy of the judgment is served on an attorney, barring any special circumstance, the party becomes aware of the existence of grounds for retrial by being aware of whether the judgment was omitted at the time when the original copy of the judgment was served. Thus, if the judgment becomes final and conclusive thereafter, the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds for evading judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da33930, Sept. 28, 1993). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the facts that the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 16, 2016 are as seen earlier, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.