토지인도
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).
1. According to the records, the following facts are recognized.
A. On November 11, 2009, the above court rendered a ruling to accept the plaintiff's claim on the main lawsuit and to dismiss the defendant's claim on the counterclaim against the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Da3527 (main lawsuit), 2009Gadan4 (Counterclaim).
B. On September 3, 2010, the Defendant appealed as the Cheongju District Court 2009Na6739 (principal lawsuit) and 2009Na6746 (Counterclaim), but was sentenced by the above court to dismiss the Defendant’s appeal.
C. On December 23, 2010, the Defendant re-appealed to the above judgment and appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2010Da81636, 2010Da81643 (Counterclaim), but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal.
On November 17, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial against the Cheongju District Court Decision 2009Na6739 (principal lawsuit), and 2009Na6746 (Counterclaim) (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on retrial”) with the Cheongju District Court Decision 201Na222 (principal lawsuit), 201 Jaena91 (Counterclaim), 201J 138 (principal lawsuit, consolidation), 201J 145 (Counterclaim, Consolidation). However, on November 17, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment dismissing or dismissing the Defendant’s request for retrial (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on retrial”).
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. Reopening of procedure can only be brought against a final judgment that has become final and conclusive, a lawsuit for retrial against a final and conclusive judgment is unlawful, and a lawsuit for retrial is not legitimate even if a judgment that had not been dismissed on the ground that a lawsuit for retrial filed prior to the final and conclusive judgment is unlawful.
(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da1132 delivered on July 8, 1980). B.
According to the records, the following facts are recognized.
(1) On November 28, 2011, the Defendant filed an appeal under Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107863 (principal lawsuit), 2011Da107870 (Counterclaim), 201Da10787 (principal lawsuit, consolidation), 201Da107884 (Counterclaim, Consolidation), but on February 9, 2012, the Defendant filed an appeal.