2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, ..

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking to specify the instant real estate (Yanju District Court Decision 2013Kadan5815). On December 18, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, the defendant appealed to Gwangju District Court 2015Na508, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's appeal on October 7, 2015.

Although the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da69556, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the final appeal on February 25, 2016, which became final and conclusive on February 29, 2016.

The gist of the cause of the request for retrial was the original Defendant’s ownership, and the Defendant did not sell the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and did not have concluded a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not know of the reason why the Plaintiff paid KRW 180 million to Nonparty C, which was made regardless of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the judgment subject to review has been limited.

Judgment

In light of the proviso of Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal, which is alleged in the ground of appeal, cannot be filed, and if the judgment of the court of final appeal is omitted, it can be known if the original copy of the judgment was served on the original copy of the judgment, and the reasons for the judgment are read. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it can be known that there was omission in judgment when the original copy of the judgment of the court of final appeal was served on the original copy of the judgment, which could be asserted as the grounds for final appeal. Thus, barring any special circumstance, a suit