소유권이전등기
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:
① On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding the performance of ownership transfer registration against the Defendant (Cheongju District Court 2016Kadan104098), and was sentenced to dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim by the said court.
② On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed as Cheongju District Court 2017Na10375, and the said court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”) against the foregoing judgment.
③ On August 7, 2017, the Defendant appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2017Da251502 regarding a judgment subject to review, but on October 12, 2017, the final appeal was dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 16, 2017.
④ On November 10, 2017, the Defendant appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case.
2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the subject matter of the judgment subject to a retrial was an important factor that could affect the judgment subject to a retrial, even though the part concerning “unauthorized possession” among the defenses of the Defendant and the part concerning the Plaintiff’s source of possession right, was omitted.
Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.
B. (1) In light of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court below was omitted, it can be known if the original of the judgment was served with the original copy of the judgment, and the reason for the judgment can be read. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it can be known that there was omission in the judgment when the original copy of the judgment of the court below was served, and it could be asserted as the ground of appeal, unless it