소유권이전등기
1. The defendant (Plaintiff)'s petition for retrial is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Around October 1, 1913, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Around June 30, 1953, the date of receipt and receipt number of the previous registration, the cause of the previous registration was obscure, and died on March 3, 2003, after completing the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration from sale on April 26, 1943. The Defendants and D are co-inheritors of G. Accordingly, upon the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the exclusion of ownership infringement, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the instant G name (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”), and filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the said G name, and filed a confession with the said court on August 24, 2014 to the Defendants’ claim for the judgment subject to a retrial by public notice as stated in the judgment subject to a retrial by public notice (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).
2. As to the existence of a ground for retrial
A. In the judgment subject to a retrial, H, which performed the instant lawsuit as the representative of the Plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial, is not a representative duly elected through a resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting, and there are grounds for retrial falling under the lack of power of representation under Article 451(1)
B. The purport of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the defect of legal representation right as a ground for a retrial is to protect the party who originally has such defect in the power of representation, so it is limited to the case where the other party can benefit by asserting such ground for retrial in order to be considered as a ground for retrial. Here, the case where benefits can be received refers to the case where the previous judgment can be finally changed into the other party’s interest even for reasons other than the defect of power of representation as above. Supreme Court Decision 200Da513 Decided December 22, 2000.