1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as a part of the loan or damages amounting to KRW 38 million with this court’s 2012da162384, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim on February 19, 2013 on the ground that “the fact of loan or tort is not recognized.”

B. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court as 2013Na19433, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal on the ground that “it is insufficient to recognize that the presented evidence alone was insufficient to lend money to or by subrogation for the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “the judgment dismissing an appeal”).

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78457, but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal on December 26, 2013, thereby becoming final and conclusive.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The plaintiff asserts that there are grounds for a retrial that falls under the time when the judgment subject to a retrial did not form a court of judgment pursuant to the law (Article 451(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act), when a judge involved in the judgment subject to a retrial commits a crime relating to his/her duties (Article 451(1)4 of the Civil Procedure Act), when the documents and other articles used as evidence for the judgment subject to a retrial were forged or altered (Article 451(1)6 of the same Act), or when a judgment contrary to the previous final judgment (Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act), but there is no evidence to prove that there are circumstances supporting each of the above grounds for a retrial, and in the case of the above 4 and 6, there are no grounds for a retrial as referred to in the above subparagraphs 1, 4, 6, and 10 of the same Article,

B. In addition, the Plaintiff also rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion by believing that the Defendant made a false statement in the party principal examination, and the full bench believed the above false statement as it is.