2012 Jinna 372 (Consolidation) Transfer of Ownership

Plaintiff (Attorney ○○○, ○○, and ○○, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Law Firm ○○ (Attorney ○○○, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

망, 순번 12. 망 ◆◆◆, 순번 26. 망 □□□, 순번 44. 망 ■■■의 소송수계인들이 청구한 소 부분을 각하한다 .

2. Of the judgment subject to a retrial, the part on the remaining plaintiffs (Plaintiffs re-adjudications), except for the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs re-adjudications), as indicated in paragraph (1), shall be revoked, and the request for re-adjudication by Defendant (Defendants re-Appellants) corresponding to

3. Of the costs of retrial, the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) and Defendant (Defendants Defendant 1) out of the costs of retrial is borne by the said Plaintiff (Plaintiffs 1), and the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs 1) except for the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs 1) and the Defendant (Defendant 1) is borne by the Defendant (Defendant 1).

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

1. Purport of claim

The purport of the separate claim is as stated in the list of the separate claim [the summary is that the defendant (the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") received repayment in the number Nos. 1 through 48 of the separate claim list from the plaintiffs as stated in the separate claim list and implemented the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of repayment with respect to the relevant land distributed to the above plaintiffs.

2. The purport of the appeal and the purport of the request for retrial in the previous review case (Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1001 delivered on February 9, 1968) and the judgment of the first instance (Seoul District Court Decision 64Da513 delivered on March 9, 1967) are revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims are all dismissed.

3. Revocation of the judgment on review of the purport of the request for retrial of this case, and the defendant's request for retrial of this case is dismissed [the plaintiff (the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff of this case") claims to dismiss and request the defendant's appeal, but the decision is made as above.

별지 원고 ( 재심원고 ) 목록 기재 △△△ ( 순번 3. 망 ◎◎◎의 소송수계인 ), ▲▲▲, ⑦ ▽▽, ▼▼▼, ☆☆☆, ★★★ ( 순번 5. 망 소의 소송수계인 ), ◁◁◁ ( 순번 12. 망 ◆◆◆의 소송수계인 ), ◀◀◀, ▷▷▷ ( 순번 26. 망 □□□의 소송수계인 ), ▶▶▶ ( 순번 44 .

망 ■■■의 소송수계인 ) 는 자신들이 각각 위 망인들의 상속인임을 전제로 이 사건 재심을 청구하였다 .

그러나 갑 제1호증의 11, 12, 14, 60, 107, 갑 제2호증의 4, 갑 제25, 26호증의 기재와 변론 전체의 취지만으로는 위 소송수계인 △△△이 위 ◎◎◎◎◎◎ ) 의 상속인인 사실, 위 소송수계인 ▲▲▲ 등이 위 ( 0 ) 의 상속인인 사실, 위 소송수계인 ◁◁◁이 위 ◆◆◆◆◆◆ ) 의 상속인인 사실, 위 소송수계인 ◀◀◀ 등이 위 □□□ ( □□□ ) 의 상속인인 사실, 위 소송수계인 ▶▶▶가 위 ■■■■■■ ) 의 상속인인 사실을 인정할 수 없고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다 .

Therefore, the petition for retrial of this case, which is based on the premise that the above litigant is the heir of the deceased, is unlawful since it was filed by a person who has no standing to be a party to retrial.

2. Process up to the petition for retrial of this case

가. 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지에 대한 농지분배 등 1 ) 서울 ◈◇◈ 답 416평 등 그 일대 약 30만 평의 토지 ( 다음부터 ' 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지 ' 라고 한다 ) 는 전답이었는데, 일제강점기에 일본에 의하여 강제 수용되어 1942년 내지 1943년경 국 ( 육군성 ) 명의의 등기가 마쳐졌다. 그럼에도 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지는 군용시설이나 군용지로 사용되지 아니하여 등기부상 지목은 전답으로 계속 남아 있었고, 원래의 경작자들에 의하여 농경지로 경작되었다. 1950. 3. 10. 농지개혁법이 개정 · 공포된 후 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지에 대하여도 농지분배절차가 진행되었고, 피고로부터 농지분배를 받은 사람들은 1950년부터 1952년까지 사이에 일부 상환곡을 납부하기도 하였다. 그러나 국방부가 1953년 5월부터 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지가 육군이 관리하는 국유지임을 내세워 소유권을 주장하자 피고는 더 이상의 상환곡을 수령하지 아니하였다 .

2) As part of the industry promotion and refugee settlement relief project on September 1, 1961, the Defendant transferred the right to manage the land in the Dong-dong from the Ministry of National Defense to the Ministry of National Defense, and had Seoul Government create the Gu-ro export industrial industrial complex. On August 1961, Seoul started the new construction of 1,20 households, 1,10 households, 1,00 households for the removal of the Gu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si

나. 농민들의 민사소송 제기 및 승소1 ) 이에 별지 청구취지 목록 기재 원고 ▣▣▣을 비롯한 85명 ( 다음부터 ' 64가5133 사건 원고들 ' 이라고 한다, 위 원고 85명 중 48명의 원고 또는 그들의 유족이 이 사건 재심청구를 한 것이다 ) 은 1964. 6. 19. 피고를 상대로 서울민사지방법원에 ' 이 사건 구로동 일대의 토지 중 78, 422평을 자신들이 분배받았다 ' 면서 상환완료를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하는 소 ( 위 법원 64가5133 ) 를 제기하였다. 서울민사지방법원은 1967. 3. 9. 위 원고들 승소 판결을 선고하였고, 서울고등법원은 1968. 2. 9 .

The Defendant’s appeal was dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1001), and the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on July 16, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 68Da804 Decided July 16, 196). Accordingly, the civil lawsuit instituted by the Plaintiffs in the 64Da5133 Incident was concluded in favor of the Plaintiffs.

2) At the time, in addition to the plaintiffs in the 64A5133 Incident, many of the 10 and 42 others filed nine civil lawsuits against the defendant (Seoul Civil District Court 65Ga5470, 00 raised by the above 10 et al., and 64Ga2625 et al.). The defendant lost most of the lawsuits.

C. When the case filed by 100 et al. and 42 of the above nine civil lawsuits against the defendant was finalized by the Supreme Court on March 19, 1968, the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office (Supreme Court Decision 68Da106 Decided March 23, 1968) recognized the operation of farmland distribution documents, "in the case of the above civil lawsuit, it is recognized that "the public officials belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry who have testified to the purport that farmland was distributed" were detained, and the investigation was initiated against the public officials belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry who have testified to the purport that farmland was distributed.

2 ) ▣▣▣을 비롯한 64가5133사건 원고들이 제기한 사건의 상고심에서도 1968. 7 .

16. 피고의 상고가 기각 ( 대법원 68다804 판결 ) 되자 서울지방검찰청은 1968년 8월경 수사에 착수하여 1968. 9. 20. 이미 사기 및 위증사건으로 구속되었던 ⅢⅢⅢ, EEE, NSN 외에 전 영등포구청 농지계장 ▦▦▦과 농지주임 ▩▩▩, 시흥군 농지담당 요요 ♤을 허위공문서작성 및 행사 혐의로, 시흥군 공무원 ♠♠♠, ①00, 영등포농지위원 ♥♥♥, B, ,, 전 경기도 농지국 직원 NNN 등을 위증 혐의로 각각 수사하는 등 수사를 확대하였다 .

3 ) 서울지방검찰청은 1968년 3월부터 1970년 7월까지 구로동 일대 토지의 소유권을 주장하면서 피고를 상대로 민사소송을 제기한 농민과 그들의 주장에 부합하는 증언을 한 공무원 등에 대한 수사를 계속하였다. 그 과정에서 체포되었다가 구속영장이 청구되기 전에 민사소송의 포기 또는 권리를 포기한 후 석방된 사람은 ①00 등 104명이었고, 구속된 후 기소 전에 소취하 또는 권리포기 후 불기소처분을 받은 사람은 9gg 등 39명이었으며, 최종적으로 기소된 사람은 ⅢⅢⅢ 등 41명이었다 . 4 ) 위에서 살펴본 대로 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지를 분배받았다면서 소유권이전등기청구 소송을 제기한 사람들과 그 소송의 심리 과정에서 증언을 한 공무원 등 41명이 기소되어 재판을 받았다 [ 서울형사지방법원 1974. 2. 18. 선고 68고42609, 69고13577 , 69 고29382, 70고27529, 70고30743 ( 병합 ) 판결, 1974. 4. 26. 및 1974. 6. 29. 선고 68고 단42609 판결 ]. 위 형사재판은 항소심 ( 서울고등법원 74노5135 ), 상고심 ( 대법원 79도550 ), 일부 피고인들에 대한 거듭된 파기환송심 ( 서울고등법원 795560, 83도459, 83노 6971 ) 등을 거쳐 1984. 3. 13. 에야 종료되었다. 위 41명 중 日日日 등 12명에 대하여는 재판 중 사망으로 공소기각결정이, 日日日에 대하여는 무죄판결이, ♠♠♠, ♡♡♡ 등 2명에 대하여는 면소판결이 선고되었고, 나머지 26명에 대해서는 유죄판결이 선고되어 확정되었다 .

5) Among the plaintiffs 85 of the 647513 Incident related to the reexamination of the instant case, "DI, DD," was prosecuted as the facts charged that "DI, DD, and D" committed the said lawsuit in collusion with the remaining plaintiffs, and acquired 78,42 square meters of the land owned by the defendant. III was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, DD shall be sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence in October, and the date was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence. On the other hand, from among the plaintiffs 85 of the said 64Ga53 Incident, the above 64Ga513 Incident was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 35 years, not for the above 45 years, but for the above 3-year suspended sentence for 15 years, the remaining public officials of the appellate court were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 35 years, not for the above 3-year suspended sentence, but for the above 3-year suspended sentence for 45 years.

D. A new trial on a civil final judgment (the judgment subject to a new trial) (the judgment subject to a new trial) was filed by the Defendant for a new trial on the civil judgment that has already been invalidated while investigating the persons involved in the instant case involving the claim for ownership transfer registration of the land located in the Guro-dong, 1968 and 1970.

2) The case claimed by the Defendant was interrupted during the period in which the criminal trial was conducted against the persons involved, and the criminal trial was concluded in 1984, which was 1984 after the completion of the criminal trial. 3) The Defendant submitted the criminal judgment and investigation records, etc. referred to in the above paragraph (c) to the trial division which deliberated the case for retrial and won all the four cases. The case for retrial (hereinafter referred to as the "case for retrial in this case") brought by the Plaintiffs to the Seoul High Court and the decision of 67Na1001 was rendered as the judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter referred to as "the case for retrial in this case") was also sentenced on December 6, 1989, and the case for retrial (hereinafter referred to as "the case for retrial in this case was referred to as "the judgment of Seoul High Court 68Da245133 and the Seoul High Court 67Na1010) was revoked, and the said Plaintiffs' claim for retrial was dismissed.

E. On May 26, 2006, the 155 persons, including some Defendants and their bereaved family members, who were convicted of a criminal offense, filed an application for the truth-finding and restoration of honor with the Committee for the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee for Settlement of History”) on the basis of the truth-finding and Reconciliation.

2) On July 8, 2008, the past reorganization committee ordered the instant case to "the suspicion of the fraud of distributed farmland lawsuit by the former", and ordered the State to intervene in the civil lawsuit to achieve administrative objectives, thereby unfairly abusing the public authority. Furthermore, the court conducted a truth-finding decision to the effect that it constitutes grounds for retrial under the Criminal Procedure Act, where it is difficult to hold the farmers who raised the civil lawsuit at the time liable for the fraud of the lawsuit by collectively committing the illegal acts, and to force the waiver of rights and the perjury illegally, constitutes grounds for retrial under the Criminal Procedure Act.

F. On February 4, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court filed a request for a retrial against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 68Da42609, 69 High Court Decision 69Da13577, February 18, 1974; 69Da29382, 70 high-level29, 70 high-level27529, 70 high-level27529, 70 high-level30743 (Joint) with the Seoul Central District Court on the basis of the decision, etc. of the Committee for the Settlement of History on February 18, 2074 (Application for a retrial against 26 Defendant 26 who was convicted).

2) On November 29, 201, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a non-guilty verdict against Defendant 21 among them (2009 inventory group 3, 6, 9 (Joint Judgment)). However, the Seoul Central District Court rejected a request for retrial filed by the bereaved family members of the NS and AA, which was convicted. The reason was that the final judgment of conviction against SNS, AA was not the first judgment rendered on February 18, 1974, but the appellate court rendered a final judgment, which was rendered on February 18, 1974, and that filing a request for retrial based on the judgment subject to retrial was unlawful. The foregoing new judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2011 by a prosecutor without filing an appeal, and on August 10, 201, the SNS and the bereaved family members of AA were also dismissed, and the Seoul Central Criminal Court rendered a new judgment that became final and conclusive on August 25, 2010 and rendered the said request for retrial to the Seoul Central Criminal Court for new judgment.

사. 이 사건 재심청구 1 ) 64가5133사건 원고들은 ▣▣▣을 비롯한 85명이다 . 2 ) 위 원고들 중 별지 원고 ( 재심원고 ) 목록 기재 순번 1 내지 48 원고들 또는 그들의 유족들 ( 다음부터 ' 이 사건 재심원고들 ' 이라고 한다 ) 은 위 형사재심청구가 인용되어 관련 피고인들에 대하여 무죄판결이 선고되자 2012. 1. 4. 전 재심사건의 판결 ( 서울고등법원 1989. 12. 6. 선고 68사24 판결 ) 의 취소를 구하는 이 사건 재심의 소 ( 서울고등법원 2012재나82 ) 를 제기하였다 ( 다만, 망 Add의 소송수계인 DNN은 2012. 3. 8 .

The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2012Na372) filed the instant review lawsuit.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 9 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the review of this case

It is because the above court tried the above case on the basis of the Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68Da42609, 69Da13577, 69Da29382, 70Da27529, 70Da30743 (Joint) decided February 18, 1974, which convicted the Defendants, including the Plaintiff IM, on the ground that the above court tried the above case on April 26, 1974 and June 29, 1974.

However, the criminal judgment on the above MD is all reversed through criminal review.

Article 451 Subparag. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a criminal judgment, which served as the basis of the judgment, was changed by a different judgment) has a ground for retrial on all the Defendants, since the judgment on the criminal review case became final and conclusive, the judgment on the retrial of this case has a ground for retrial.

Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked.

2) Defendant’s assertion

The instant lawsuit for retrial was filed after the expiration of the period for filing a retrial, and thus, is unlawful, and even if not, there is no ground for retrial as alleged by the Plaintiffs in the instant judgment subject to retrial.

B. Determination

1) Whether the period for filing a new review is expired

Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for retrial shall be filed within 30 days from the date the party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial.

However, the re-adjudications of this case (excluding plaintiffs 2 WD) are Seoul District Criminal Court on February 2, 1974.

18. Decision 68Da42609, 69Da13577, 69Da29382, 70 senior 27529, 70 senior 30743 (Joint) and 1974

4. It is clear that the instant lawsuit for retrial was filed on January 4, 2012 after the 30th day from November 29, 201, which was the date on which the criminal judgment was rendered in the instant case against the High Court Decision 68Da42609, Jun. 29, 1974, etc.

However, the grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparagraph 8 of the Civil Procedure Act is "when a criminal judgment, which served as the basis of the judgment, was altered by another trial." Thus, when the above criminal judgment was altered by a retrial, it should be viewed as December 7, 201, which is the date of pronouncement of the above criminal retrial case, rather than the date of adjudication of the said criminal case.

Therefore, it is within 30 days from December 7, 201, which is the date of the judgment of the above criminal case, which became final and conclusive.

4. The retrial suit of this case filed is not filed with the intent of the release period.

However, the OO, the litigation of the deceased AU, filed a lawsuit for the retrial of this case on March 8, 2012. However, since it did not belong to 41 persons who were prosecuted around 1970, his/her bereaved family members were not in the state of filing a petition for criminal review. As such, the fact that the judgment of the criminal review case brought by the Defendants or their bereaved family members who were convicted was sentenced on November 29, 201 cannot be deemed to have been immediately known until the date of declaration of the fact that the judgment of the criminal review case brought by the Defendants or their bereaved family members was sentenced on November 29, 201. Accordingly, in the case of RAE, it cannot be deemed that they filed a lawsuit for the retrial of this case even 30 days after they became aware of the grounds for retrial.

Ultimately, the defendant's defenses based on the grounds that the lawsuit for review of this case was filed with the lapse of the period for filing the petition for review cannot be accepted.

2) In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 2-4 of the evidence No. 2, the Seoul High Court, which deliberated on the previous review case claimed by the Defendant, determined that there was a ground for retrial in the Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1001, which was the judgment on the previous review case, for the following reasons.

① 서울고등법원 67나1001 사건을 심리한 재판부는 공무원인 ♤♤♤, ▦▦▦ , 이 작성한 군용지관리에 관한 건, 군용지에 대한 농지분배 상황조사의 건이라는 제목의 보고서와 증인 NSD, ♠♠ ♠, # # # ( # # # 의 오기이다 ) 의 증언 등을 토대로 원고들의 청구를 인용하였다 .

② However, SNSs of the said three witnesses were indicted for committing perjury in the court among the trials of the first instance on the case subject to review.

③ 그리고 위 군용지관리에 관한 건, 군용지에 대한 농지분배상황조사의 건이라는 제목의 보고서는 ♤♤♤, ▦▦▦, ▩▩▩에 의하여 1953. 7. 2., 1953. 12. 13. 작성되었는데, 위 ♤♤♤ 등이 허위공문서를 작성하였다는 혐의사실에 대해 공소시효 완성으로 불기소되기는 하였지만, 이 사건 구로동 일대 토지의 소송에 관여한 다수의 사람들에 대한 수사를 통하여 기소된 41명에 대한 형사재판에서 기소된 대부분의 사람들이 유죄판결을 받았고 그 판결이 확정된 점에 비추어 볼 때 ♤♤♤ 등의 허위공문서작성 부분도 공소시효가 완성되지 않아 기소되었다면 유죄판결을 받았을 것으로 추인된다 .

④ Accordingly, the Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1001, which is the subject case of review, is the former Civil Procedure Act (2002).

1. There are grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)6 (when documents or other items constituting evidence for a judgment have been forged or altered), and 7 (when false statements made by a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or the party who made an oath or his legal representative become evidence for a judgment) under Article 422(1)6 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 26Da626).

나 ) 그러나 위 법원이 재심사유로 삼은 사유 중 SNS가 위증죄로 처벌받았다는 부분은 SNS의 유족인 이 청구한 형사재심 사건 ( 서울중앙지방법원 2010재노 26 ) 에서 무죄판결이 선고되어 확정되었으므로 더 이상 재심사유가 될 수 없다. 그리고 위 재심법원이 위증을 한 것으로 언급한 ♠♠♠, # # # 은 유죄판결은 받은 것이 아니고 ( ♠♠♠에 대하여는 파기환송을 거듭한 끝에 공소제기 후 15년 도과를 이유로 면소판결이 선고되었고, # # # 에 대하여는 항소심 재판도중 사망하여 공소기각결정이 내려졌다 ), 더구나 위 ♠♠♠과 # # # 은 이 사건 재심사건과 관련 있는 64가5133 사건이나 그 항소심인 67나1001 사건을 심리하는 법정에서는 증언을 한 바 없으므로 그들이 다른 민사 사건에서 위증을 한 것으로 기소되었다는 사정은 위 재심 사건에서의 직접적인 재심사유가 된다고 할 수도 없다 .

그리고 유죄판결을 받았던 총 26명 중 위 NNN 외에도 22명의 피고인들 또는 그들의 유족이 청구한 형사재심사건 ( 서울중앙지방법원 2009 재고단3, 2010재노25 ) 에서 피고인들 모두에 대하여 무죄판결이 선고되었고 그 재심판결이 확정되었다. 따라서 기소된 사람들 대부분이 유죄판결을 받았으므로 공소시효가 완성되어 기소되지 않은 요♤♤ 등의 허위공문서작성 부분도 기소되었다면 유죄판결이 선고되었을 것으로 추인한 위 재심법원의 논리는 더 이상 유지될 수 없다고 보아야 한다 ( 오히려 ♤♤♤ 등이 허위공문서 작성죄로 기소되어 유죄판결을 받았다면 형사재심을 통하여 무죄판결을 선고 받았을 것으로 추인함이 타당하다 ) .

C) In addition, the decision on retrial is not directly decided on the judgment on retrial, but it is not prosecuted that the 35 Plaintiffs of the 64Ga513 Incident, among the 85 Plaintiffs of the 64Ga513 Incident, acquired 78,422 square meters out of the 300,000 square meters of the land in the 300,000 square meters of the land in the 64Ga513 Incident, and the remaining 3, excluding the EU which died during the trial, and DID was sentenced to conviction, one of the reasons why the retrial court received the defendant's request for retrial. However, with respect to MD among the 2 persons who were convicted, the bereaved family's request for retrial was accepted, and the judgment of innocence was pronounced.

D) Furthermore, the past History Settlement Board recommended that the Defendant take appropriate measures for reconciliation and reconciliation because the Defendant, who mobilized public authorities, such as the Central Information Division and the Prosecutor’s Office, committed unlawful confinement and cruel acts by the Defendant, and prosecuted the waiver or waiver of a civil lawsuit on the premise of release or charges for litigation fraud or perjury, etc. on the premise of release, and led the case already lost or currently in progress to take part in the civil lawsuit.

E) In full view of all the circumstances seen above, it is reasonable to view that the grounds for retrial alleged by the Defendant in the previous review case have lost its grounds as the above criminal review judgment. In other words, the instant judgment subject to retrial ought to be deemed to exist when the criminal judgment, which served as the basis of the judgment, was changed according to another judgment. Ultimately, the instant judgment for retrial was accepted by the Defendant on the premise that there exists any further ground for retrial, and the Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1001 and its revocation was unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the suit for the retrial of this case filed by the litigants in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 5, 12, 26, and 44 of the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs in the separate sheet) shall be dismissed. The part of the suit for retrial of this case, other than the above Appellants, shall be accepted by the rest of the re-adjudications in the judgment subject to retrial, and the part against the above Appellants in the judgment subject to retrial shall be revoked and the defendant

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges fixed number