소유권이전등기절차이행
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:
On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in return for the payment of the remaining purchase price and redemption in accordance with the land sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 24, 2013.
B. As to this, the Defendant appealed by this Court No. 2013Na11922, and the appellate court rendered a judgment revoking the first instance judgment on July 9, 2014 and dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).
C. On October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s final appeal on October 15, 2014, which became final and conclusive by serving the original copy of the said judgment to the Plaintiff’s attorney on October 20, 2014.
2. Determination on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act
A. In the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment).
B. 1) The phrase “when a judgment is omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment”, which are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to cases where a party submitted in a lawsuit and failed to clarify the judgment in the reasoning of the judgment concerning the means of attack and defense that may affect the judgment. As long as there exists such judgment, even if the reasons leading to the judgment are not clearly explained or the grounds for rejecting the party’s claims are not individually explained, it shall not be deemed omission of the judgment under the above Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97DaDa278, Feb. 24, 1998).