1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, and Plaintiff for Retrial)’s lawsuit on the retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be paid.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance was rendered on July 9, 2010 by the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Da15329 (principal lawsuit), 2009Kadan27490 (Counterclaim), and the judgment of the court of first instance rendered on July 9, 2010 by the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim claim, and on November 15, 2010, the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive on November 15, 2010 by both parties’ appeal and the judgment of the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju), 2010Na1440 (principal lawsuit), 2010Na1457 (Counterclaim) and the part in favor of the Defendant against delay damages in the judgment of first instance was revoked. The Defendant’s appeal was rendered on November 15, 2010 and the remainder of both parties’ appeals were dismissed. However, the Defendant’s appeal became final and conclusive on October 21, 2010.

2. The judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff is based on the physical appraisal statement (Evidence B No. 1) and the results of a fact-finding on the Head of the Chungcheong University Hospital Hospital at the court of first instance. However, in light of the circumstances where the Defendant is under medical treatment for more than three years since the occurrence of the accident and still remains, the above physical appraisal statement or fact-finding reply may be deemed to have been falsely prepared. As such, among the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the above physical appraisal statement or fact-finding reply constitutes “when the documents and other articles used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered” under subparagraph 6, subparagraph 7 of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and “when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party examination, the judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked, and the Defendant’s request for retrial of this case should be accepted.

3. In order to claim the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as to whether a lawsuit for retrial of the instant case is lawful, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(2) other than such grounds for retrial.