1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

purport, purport, ..

1. In a judgment subject to a retrial by the defendant (Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na66109 delivered on April 7, 2006), the plaintiffs of the case [the plaintiff (the defendant for a retrial; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff")]

b)the documents forged or altered were produced as evidence and thus the Defendant’s appeal became final and conclusive by dismissal.

However, since husband E was found guilty of the crime of forging a private document, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the document that served as evidence of the judgment is forged or altered) in the judgment subject to a retrial.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. In the case of Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act of the relevant legal doctrine, a lawsuit for retrial may be brought only when a judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence.

(Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. If such requirements are not met, the action for retrial itself is unlawful, and thus, the grounds for retrial itself should be dismissed without going through to determine whether or not there exist any grounds for retrial. The facts constituting legitimate requirements must be proved by the parties who filed a lawsuit for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29658, Oct. 24, 1989).

According to the records of this case, documents No. 2 (list of shareholders), Gap No. 4 (Minutes of temporary general meeting of shareholders as of February 25, 2005), Gap No. 7 (Register of corporation), Gap No. 8 (General Resolution), Gap No. 10 (Provisional Disposition Decision), Gap No. 16 (No. notarial Deed), and Gap No. 21 (Articles of incorporation) were evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial.

However, according to the records, E was found guilty of facts constituting a crime, such as fabrication of private documents, as alleged by the Defendant, but it was decided upon the conviction of the E, but the Jung-gu District Court High Court Decision 2012Hun-Ma622, Jung-gu District Court Decision 2015No1526.