2. Of the judgment subject to a retrial, the part against the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 14 and 15 among the judgment subject to a retrial is revoked, and all of the appeals filed by the defendant (the defendant) against the remaining plaintiffs (the plaintiff) who correspond to the above revoked part is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of retrial, the part arising between Plaintiffs 14, 15 and Defendant (Defendant) shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) and the remainder of the costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Defendants).

The purport of the separate claim is as stated in the list of the separate claim [the summary is that the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") received repayment payment stipulated at the time of farmland distribution from the plaintiffs Nos. 1 through 5 as stated in the list of the separate claim, and the above plaintiffs must implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of repayment as to the pertinent land distributed to the above plaintiffs];

2. Purport of appeal and that of request for retrial of the previous case

The judgment subject to a retrial (Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798 delivered on June 3, 1966) and the judgment of the first instance (Seoul Civil Court Decision 64Na10457 delivered on June 30, 196) are revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Purport of the request for retrial of this case

The original judgment is revoked and the defendant's request for retrial is dismissed.

Plaintiff 14 and Plaintiff 15 filed for the retrial of this case on the premise that they were the successors of Plaintiff 5, who were their deceased parties, and that the Seoul High Court, which was the judgment subject to the retrial of this case, was effective in December 6, 1989, under the premise that they were the successors of Plaintiff 5, who were their deceased parties.

On September 29, 1983, after the filing of the lawsuit in the Seoul High Court case No. 68Ga20 (hereinafter “former Review case”), Plaintiff 5 died on September 29, 1983. At the time, the inheritor was the wife Nonparty 1, Plaintiff 11, Plaintiff 14, Plaintiff 13, and Plaintiff 12, who was the child, but Nonparty 1 died on July 14, 1984, and eventually, on September 27, 1989, the date of closing the argument in the previous Review case, Plaintiff 5,00 children, and Plaintiff 5,00,000 (hereinafter “former Review case”), Plaintiff 11, 13, and 124, Plaintiff 14, and 15, Plaintiff 15, and Plaintiff 15, Plaintiff 2, who was the assignee of the previous Review case, were not indicated in the judgment of the Seoul High Court on September 27, 1989.

A plaintiff for retrial shall be a person who has the effect of a final and conclusive judgment and has the interest in seeking its revocation. It is examined whether the effect of the judgment subject to retrial extends to plaintiffs 14 and 15, who are not expressed in the judgment subject to retrial.

In a case where an attorney is appointed, the proceedings are not interrupted even if the party dies, and the attorney's power of attorney does not extinguish. In such a case, the deceased's attorney is treated as the inheritor's attorney, as a matter of law, without the need to obtain new authorization from the inheritor due to ex officio succession of the party's status, and the lawsuit is conducted for all of the inheritors. In a case where the party died, but the litigation procedure is not interrupted due to his/her attorney's death, even if a judgment was rendered by indicating only a part of the co-inheritors who initiated the lawsuit procedure as a party among the co-inheritors of the deceased, the effect of the judgment also extends to the remaining co-inheritors who did not take over (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da22859, Dec

As litigation records related to the previous review case do not remain, whether Plaintiff 5’s attorney was appointed at the time of Plaintiff 5’s death before the previous review of lawsuit, and whether only Plaintiff 11, 13, and 12 were indicated in the course of the said lawsuit as the litigation receiver of Plaintiff 5 before the previous review of lawsuit, and the reason why only Plaintiff 11, 13, and 12 were not indicated is unclear. However, inasmuch as there were no other special dissenting materials, a final judgment should be deemed to have been made without defects in due process. In principle, Plaintiff 14, and Plaintiff 15, who were not indicated as the assignee of the above judgment, must prove that the said judgment has an effect on their respective parties.

If the effect of the judgment subject to a retrial against Plaintiffs 14 and 15 remains unchanged, the legal representative was appointed at the time of the death of the deceased in the previous retrial case, together with the fact that the above plaintiffs maintained the status of the heir of Plaintiff 5 before and after the death of the deceased, through the renunciation of inheritance or the agreement on division of inherited property, etc., from the time of the completion of the proceedings for the previous retrial to the time of the closure of the proceedings for the previous retrial, there is no evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial cannot be deemed to affect the Plaintiffs 14 and 15, so the above Plaintiffs cannot have the eligibility for the plaintiff in the retrial lawsuit of this case. The part concerning the above plaintiffs’ claim among the lawsuits for a retrial of this case is unlawful.

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

A. Distribution, etc. of farmland to the land located in the Dong-dong of this case

1) On March 10, 1950, approximately 30,000 square meters of land in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land in Dong-dong”) was the first answer, but the registration was completed in the name of the State State around 1942 through 1943, which was enforced by Japan during the Japanese occupation period. Nevertheless, the land in Dong-dong was not used as military facilities or military land, and the land category on the registry remains in the first answer, and was cultivated as farmland by its original cultivator. After the Farmland Reform Act was amended and promulgated on March 10, 1950, the farmland distribution procedure was initiated for the land in Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Seoul, and the farmland distribution person who received farmland from the Defendant was also paid part of the farmland from the Defendant during the period from 1950 to 1952, and the Defendant did not claim that the land in this case was the State-owned land more than 1953 days from May 3, 1953.

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 of the Guro-dong in this case to the Ministry of National Defense, and had the Seoul Metropolitan Government create an industrial complex for the old-ro export industry. On August 1961, Seoul started the new construction of 1,200 public houses for the removal of the market standard, 1,100 simple houses, and 1,100 households for the new construction of the old-dong export industry, and completed construction completion and occupancy on August 1, 1962 through September 9, 1962, the above old-dong area created the old-dong Corporation, the old-dong Elementary School, the old-Namnam Elementary School, the old-ro Market, the private housing site,

(b)instituting and winning civil action against farmers;

1) Accordingly, seven persons, including Plaintiff 1, before the filing of the lawsuit in the separate list of claims stated in the separate sheet, including Plaintiff 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs in 64A10457,” and five plaintiffs or their bereaved family members among the above plaintiffs 7 filed the petition for retrial of this case) filed a lawsuit against the defendant in Seoul Civil District Court against the defendant in 1964 (the above court 64A10457) seeking the implementation of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership due to the completion of reimbursement while “the 4,526 of the land in the Gurodong-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-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee of Seoul High Court on June 30, 1966, Seoul High Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal on June 30, 1964.

2) At the time, in addition to the Plaintiffs in the 64A10457 case, many other persons including Nonparty 2 and 42 filed nine civil lawsuits against the Defendant (Seoul Civil District Court 65Da5470, and 64A2625, etc., brought by Nonparty 4, etc.). The Defendant lost most of the lawsuit.

(c) Investigations and prosecutions by prosecutors against farmers, etc. filing civil lawsuits;

1) On March 19, 1968, when the case filed by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 42 among the above nine civil lawsuits became final and conclusive against the Defendant by the Supreme Court on March 19, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 68Da106 Decided March 23, 1968), the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office, which rendered a testimony to the effect that "it was aware of the fact that farmland was distributed" was arrested by Nonparty 3 belonging to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, who made a testimony to the effect that "it was aware of the fact that farmland was distributed," and started an investigation into public officials in charge of farmland in each agency

2) On April 16, 1968, the judgment was finalized by the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 66Da901). On September 19, 1968, the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office (Supreme Court Decision 66Da901) additionally detained three non-party 5 and non-party 6 who are non-party 2 who are public officials, due to fraud or perjury, preparation of false documents, and suspicion of such events, and entered the non-party 21 and other non-party 42 who were non-party 21. On July 16, 1968, the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office (Supreme Court Decision 68Da804, Supreme Court Decision 68Da804, Supreme Court Decision 1968, the investigation of Non-party 1, Non-party 5, non-party 21, non-party 6, non-party 1 and non-party 1, non-party 1, non-party 7 and non-party 1, non-party 1, non-party 98 and Si farmland.

3) From March 1968 to July 1970, the Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office continued the investigation into the farmers who filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant and the public officials who testified in conformity with their arguments. During that process, 104 persons who were arrested and released after the waiver of civil litigation or the waiver of rights before the request for detention warrant was filed, Nonparty 2 and others, and 39 persons who were detained and were subject to a non-prosecution disposition after the withdrawal of the lawsuit or the renunciation of rights before the prosecution was detained, and 41 persons who were finally prosecuted, including Nonparty 5, etc.

4) As seen earlier, 41 persons, including those who filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration and public officials who testified in the process of the examination of the lawsuit, were prosecuted and tried (Seoul Criminal Court Decision 68Da42609, 69Da13577, 69Da29382, 70Da27529, 70Da30743, April 26, 1974 and June 29, 1974). The above criminal trial was pronounced guilty upon the death of the Seoul High Court (Seoul Criminal Court Decision 74No5135), the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 79Do550), the public official who testified in the process of the examination of the lawsuit, and the remaining non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-appellant.

5) Of the Plaintiffs 64A10457 and their families related to the review of the instant case, the facts charged that “the Plaintiffs 1, 5, and 2’s married Nonparty 3 and 4’s married Nonparty 19, who were his married couple before the taking-off of the instant lawsuit, conspired with the remaining Plaintiffs and obtained the Defendant’s land 4,526 square meters” was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in October, and the Plaintiff 5, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in prison (Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 68Da4269, 657, 3779, 6397, 297, 297, 207, 3797, 207, 297, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 207, 375, 207, etc.).

D. Re-adjudication of civil final and conclusive judgment (instant judgment subject to a retrial)

1) In 1968 and 1970, the Defendant filed a petition for review of the civil judgment that has already been invalidated while investigating the persons involved in the case of the claim for ownership transfer registration of the land located in the Guro-dong in the instant case.

2) The case claimed by the Defendant was interrupted during the period in which a criminal trial was conducted against the persons involved, and the case was resumed in 1984 after the criminal trial was completed.

3) The Defendant submitted the criminal judgments, investigation records, etc. referred to in Paragraph (c) above to the full bench which reviewed the case for retrial and won all of the four cases for retrial. The instant judgment subject to retrial, which was the judgment for retrial rendered on December 6, 1989 (Seoul High Court 68Na20), which was the judgment for retrial (Seoul High Court 68Na10457 and Seoul High Court 65Na1798) that won the case for retrial, filed by the Plaintiffs, was also revoked, and the judgment for retrial was revoked due to the Defendant’s acceptance of the Defendant’s request for retrial, and the Plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed.

E. The truth-finding findings by the Korean Film Commission for truth and reconciliation

1) On May 26, 2006, 155 of the Defendants, their bereaved family members, etc., who were convicted of a criminal offense, applied for the truth-finding and restoration of their honor to the Former History Mediation Committee (hereinafter “Regulatory Committee”) for the truth-finding and reconciliation.

2) On July 8, 2008, the previous reorganization committee ordered the instant case to be “the former cases of misappropriation of distributed farmland lawsuit fraud,” and conducted an investigation for more than one year, conducted a truth-finding survey to the effect that “the State interventions in civil litigation to achieve administrative objectives, thereby unfairly abusing public authority, thereby prescribing the case as the case of abuse of public authority, and further, “it is difficult for farmers who raised civil litigation at the time to be held liable for fraud at the time, and it constitutes grounds for retrial under the Criminal Procedure Act to force the waiver of rights and perjury by collectively unlawful acts by the farmers.”

(f) The judgment of a criminal retrial against a conviction (guilty verdict)

1) On February 4, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court filed a request for a review with respect to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 68Da42609, 69Da13577, 69Da29382, 70 high-27529, 70 high-level27529, 70 high-level 70 high-level 70743 (combined) on the basis of the decision, etc. of the past History Settlement Commission on February 18, 1974 by some of the 26 Defendants who were convicted and their bereaved family members who died (the request for a retrial against 23 of the 26 Defendants who were convicted of the charge).

2) The Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of innocence on November 29, 201 against Defendant 21 among them (2009 Inventory 3, 6, 9 (combined)). However, the Seoul Central District Court rejected a request for retrial filed by Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 20’s bereaved family members who were convicted. The reason is that the final judgment of conviction against Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 20 was not a judgment of the first instance, which was rendered on February 18, 1974, but a judgment of the appellate court, which was rendered on February 18, 1974, and thus, the filing of a request for retrial by a judgment of the said first instance judgment was unlawful. The said new judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2011 without a prosecutor’s appeal.

3) On August 10, 2010, Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 20’s bereaved family members whose claim was dismissed in the foregoing retrial case filed a petition for new trial (Seoul District Court Decision 74No5135 Decided August 10, 2010) with the Seoul Central District Court (Nonindicted 6) and 83No459 (Nonindicted 20), which is the appellate court’s judgment, as the judgment subject to new trial (Seoul District Court Decision 2010 No. 25,26). On January 27, 2012, the above court accepted the request for new trial and rendered a judgment of not guilty against Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 20, and the said new judgment became final and conclusive on February 4, 2012 because the prosecutor did not file an appeal.

G. The petition for retrial of this case

1) The Plaintiffs in the 64A10457 case are seven persons, including Plaintiff 1, before the lawsuit is initiated.

2) Of the above plaintiffs, the plaintiffs (Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, and their bereaved family members prior to the acceptance of the lawsuit) or their bereaved family members indicated in the list of claims among the above plaintiffs (hereinafter “the plaintiffs of this case”) filed the lawsuit of this case (Seoul High Court Decision 68Na20, Dec. 6, 1989) seeking revocation of the previous review case (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na99) on January 4, 2012, upon acceptance of the above criminal petition for retrial and the judgment of not guilty was rendered against the relevant defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff of this case's assertion

The defendant's prior petition for retrial filed by the defendant against the defendant as the original judgment in Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798 was accepted because the above court tried the above case on the basis of the Seoul District Court Decision 68Da42609, 69Da42607, 69Da13577, 69Da29382, 70Da27529, 70Da30743, April 26, 1974 and June 29, 1974, which convicted the defendants, including the plaintiff 1, etc.

However, since the criminal judgment on Plaintiffs 1 et al. prior to the above lawsuit was reversed through a criminal review, and all the relevant Defendants were acquitted, and the judgment on the criminal review case became final and conclusive, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451 Subparag. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the criminal judgment, which served as the basis of the judgment, was changed by another judgment) in the judgment subject to retrial.

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

B. Defendant’s assertion

The litigation of this case was instituted after the expiration of the period for filing a retrial. Thus, even if it is not so, there is no ground for retrial as asserted by the plaintiffs in the judgment subject to a retrial.

4. Determination

(a) Whether the period for filing a request for retrial has expired;

Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "The lawsuit for review shall be filed within 30 days from the date on which the party becomes aware of the grounds for review."

However, the plaintiff of this case filed the lawsuit of this case on November 4, 2012, after the lapse of 30 days from February 18, 1974, 68Da42609, 69Da13577, 69Da29382, 70 high-level27529, 70 high-level30743 (merged), and 68 high-level42609 decided April 26, 1974 and June 29, 1974.

However, the grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to “when a criminal judgment, which forms the basis of the judgment, was altered by another trial.” Thus, when the said criminal judgment was altered through a retrial, the grounds for retrial should be deemed not on November 29, 201, which was the date of pronouncement of the said criminal retrial case, but on December 7, 2011, which was the date of conclusion of the said judgment.

Therefore, the instant litigation filed on January 4, 201, which was within 30 days from December 7, 201, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the said criminal case, was not filed with the lapse of the period of release.

Ultimately, the defendant's defense, which is based on the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit for review of this case, cannot be accepted.

2) Whether there exists a ground for retrial

A) In full view of the purport of evidence No. 2-4, 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 65Na1798, which was an original judgment in the previous review case, for the following reasons.

① The Seoul High Court tried the 65Na1798 case, citing the Plaintiffs’ claim on the basis of the report on the management of military land prepared by Nonparty 9, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8, and on the basis of the case of the investigation on the distribution of farmland to military land.

② The instant report on the management of military land, the title of which is the case of investigating the farmland distribution status of military land, was prepared on July 2, 1953 by Nonparty 9, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8 on December 13, 1953, and the fact that Nonparty 9 et al. was suspected of preparing a false official document was not prosecuted upon the completion of the statute of limitations. However, in light of the fact that most of the prosecuted persons were convicted, and that the judgment became final, the portion of preparation of a false official document by Nonparty 9 et al. is confirmed to have been convicted if they were indicted due to the completion of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, in Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798, which is a judgment subject to a retrial, there are grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (when documents and other articles constituting evidence of a judgment were forged or altered).

B) However, in the criminal review case (Seoul Central District Court 2009 Inventory 3, 2010No25, 2010 No.266), among the total 26 persons who were convicted, the judgment of innocence was rendered on all the Defendants, and the judgment of retrial became final and conclusive. Therefore, since most of the prosecuted persons were convicted, if they were indicted on the preparation of a false official document by Nonparty 9, etc. who was not prosecuted after the statute of limitations expired, the logic of the above retrial court which confirmed that the judgment of conviction was rendered cannot no longer maintained (or it is reasonable to confirm that Nonparty 9, etc. was acquitted on the charge of preparation of a false official document if they were convicted on the charge of preparing a false official document).

C) In addition, the judgment subject to a retrial is not directly indicated in the judgment subject to a retrial. However, among the plaintiffs of 64A10457 and their families, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 5, the plaintiff 2 before the succession of the lawsuit, the plaintiff 3, and the plaintiff 19, the Dong-dong plaintiff 4 et al. of the plaintiff 19 before the succession of the lawsuit and the plaintiff 2, who were his father et al. of the plaintiff 2 before the succession of the lawsuit, conspired with all the plaintiffs in collusion with all of the remaining cases, they were indicted by deceiving 4,526, out of the 300,000 square meters of the land in the Gurodong-dong, and all of them were convicted of the judgment subject to a retrial by the above retrial court was one of the grounds for receiving the defendant's request for a retrial.

D) Furthermore, the past History Adjustment Committee recommended that the Defendant take appropriate measures for reconciliation and reconciliation on the ground that the Defendant, who mobilized public authorities, such as the Central Information Division and the Prosecutor’s Office, unlawfully committed the act of confinement and cruel treatment by the Defendant, and prosecuted and punished the waiver or waiver of a civil lawsuit on the premise of release by force, in an unreasonable way, or by litigation fraud and perjury, etc. on the premise of release, and led the case already lost or in progress to be taken against the relevant persons.

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 seen above. That is, in the instant judgment subject to retrial, there exists a ground for retrial falling under “when a criminal judgment, which served as the basis of the judgment, was altered according to another judgment.” Ultimately, the instant judgment subject to retrial was accepted by the Defendant on the premise that there exist any grounds for retrial no longer existed, and the instant judgment subject to retrial was revoked by the Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798 and the judgment of the first instance court,

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning claims by Plaintiffs 14 and 15 among the lawsuits for retrial of this case is dismissed, and the remaining plaintiffs accepted the petition for retrial of this case and revoked the judgment subject to retrial and dismissed the defendant's petition for retrial on that part. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)