(b) A case that it does not constitute a modification to opinions on legal application;

B. Of the two Supreme Court Decisions, the former is related to the performance and the right of rescission of a real estate donation, and the latter is related to the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment, so it can be said that the latter changes the opinion of legal application at the time of electronic sales.

Litigation costs incurred in a retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for this review are as follows:

In other words, although the defendant (the defendant) filed a request for ownership transfer registration on the land of this case against the plaintiff (the plaintiff) was rendered a favorable judgment in the first and second instances of the first and second instances, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below on December 27, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 77Da834). The decision of the court below against the defendant was rendered after the remand, and the decision became final and conclusive at that time, and the decision became final and conclusive at that time, on the other hand, the case of the request for transfer of the land of this case against the defendant was filed by the plaintiff as of August 14, 1979, since the judgment of the court below was rendered (Supreme Court Decision 79Da1105).

Therefore, the Supreme Court Decision 77Da834 delivered on December 27, 197, recognized the Plaintiff's ownership of this case in the above 77Da834 delivered on this case. However, in the above 79Da1105 delivered on August 14, 79, the Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's right to claim delivery based on the Plaintiff's ownership of this case. Therefore, the above Supreme Court Decision 79Da1105 delivered on August 14, 197 (hereinafter referred to as the original judgment) changed its opinion on the application of the law in the Supreme Court Decision 77Da834 delivered on this case. The judgment was judged by a panel of the Supreme Court that is not less than 2/3 of all the judges of the Supreme Court, but composed of 4 judges of the Supreme Court, which is not a collegiate body of not less than 2/3 of all the judges of the Supreme Court, which constitutes a judgment court under the law, and thus, there is a ground for retrial in

Therefore, if the Supreme Court modifies its opinion on the application of laws as stated in the Supreme Court, it shall be decided by a panel of at least 2/3 of all judges of the Supreme Court. If it is decided by a panel of the Supreme Court composed of less than one judge of the Supreme Court, this constitutes grounds for retrial under the law. According to the records, the opinion on the application of laws as stated in the Supreme Court Decision 77Da834 Decided December 27, 197 is insufficient to refer only to the delivery of the real estate, and the procedure for transfer of ownership is completed. Thus, if the donation is not written, and ownership transfer registration is not completed, the donor may rescind the donation contract. The opinion on the application of laws as stated in the original judgment, which is the original judgment, is a final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court, which is a judgment of the Supreme Court, and the plaintiff's final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court against the defendant, which is a final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court, cannot be seen as an exercise of res judicata effect before the plaintiff's final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court.

In this regard, the request for re-deliberation, which is premised on a different view, will not be dismissed without reason.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jin- Port (Presiding Justice)