The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The appeal by the defendant (the defendant in retrial) is dismissed.

All costs of the principal lawsuit and retrial shall be borne by the defendant (re-appellant).

The defendant (the defendant) will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on March 5, 1954, with respect to 31 in sequence, which connects the points of the "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", and "A", among the 35th 1st 1st eth eth Doz.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

2. Preliminary claim;

The defendant (the defendant) shall execute on March 4, 1974 the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on March 4, 1974 with respect to 31 square meters of the above site to the plaintiff (the plaintiff for retrial) at the cost of the defendant (

The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s claim is dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by all of the first and second instances of trial by the plaintiff (the plaintiff for review).

First, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the above final judgment, and the Plaintiff’s attorney’s testimony No. 4, each of the witnesses of No. 4 employed by the instant judgment subject to a retrial as evidence for fact-finding, was forged by the Defendant, and the said person was sentenced to a final judgment of conviction due to the fabrication of the above private document and the crime of uttering thereof, and thus, in the said judgment subject to a retrial adopted as evidence, there is a ground for a retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the said Act, but there is no dispute over the establishment, according to the evidence No. 7-2 of the evidence No. 7-2, each of the witnesses of No. 4,

Next, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s arguments as to the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act, evidence Nos. 7-2 and evidence Nos. 8-2, which had been previously established, the Plaintiff purchased 31 square meters from the Defendant on Mar. 5, 1954, and even if he did not purchase snow, he rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for the transfer registration of ownership of the building site as of March 4, 1974, where the Plaintiff acquired by prescription of the building site as of March 4, 1974, and the decision for retrial is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. In other words, the Plaintiff purchased only one column and one column of the room, which is the building on the ground other than the building site, and the witness of Nonparty 1, who was the first instance court, who had been employed as the fact-finding data that possession of the building site was in possession of the building site on the ground of falsity, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 17 July 19, 197.

Thus, the judgment subject to a retrial adopted the non-party 1's false statement prior to the retrial as materials for fact-finding, which are contrary to the plaintiff's argument on this case, thereby adversely affecting the fact-finding, which is the basis of the text of the judgment. The "when the false statement of a witness is proved" under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is defined as grounds for retrial, is not limited to the case where the witness's false statement is directly employed as materials for fact-finding, which is the basis of the text of the judgment, but also includes the case where it indirectly affects it. Thus, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the principal claim is the principal claim and the plaintiff's attorney again purchased 31 square meters of the title of claim from the defendant on March 5, 1954 from the defendant on the 9th day of building construction on the ground and paid the price in full. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the above site is asserted that the defendant is seeking the execution of the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the above site. Thus, the plaintiff's purchase of the building on this site from the defendant's own time is the defendant's legal representative, but the plaintiff's testimony on this site is the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the witness before the retrial, and the non-party 4's testimony on the first instance trial witness before the trial, and the non-party 1's receipt on this ground is not believed to be a member, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's purchase of the title of claim No. 2, 34 and No. 12 on this case's ground, it is hard to accept the plaintiff's claim.

In light of the following facts: (a) although the Plaintiff purchased 31 square meters of the above site from the Defendant on May 4, 1954, the Plaintiff asserted that he would occupy the above site for a public performance with the intention to own it for 20 years from May 4, 1974; (b) the period of prescriptive acquisition for the Defendant would expire; (c) the entry of No. 1, which was earlier, and the result of the on-site inspection at the lower court; and (d) Nonparty 5’s appraisal by Nonparty 5, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have purchased 31 square meters of the above site from May 4, 1954; (d) the Plaintiff continued to occupy the above site for 1, 1954, 1, 1, 31 square meters of the above site; and (e) the fact that the Plaintiff purchased 41 square meters of the above site from the Defendant’s building site for 5, 1, 1, 12, 3, and 6, without any dispute over the establishment of evidence No.

Thus, even if the non-party 1's false statement was excluded before the new trial, which is admitted as evidence by the original judgment, the plaintiff's claim for the main lawsuit is nothing more than a justifiable one, and thus, the original judgment dismissed is eventually justifiable. Since the plaintiff's lawsuit for new trial is without merit, it is dismissed, and the costs of new trial are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)