2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The defendant for retrial (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall make a new trial (the plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff"; hereinafter together with the plaintiff and the defendant shall be referred to as the "Plaintiff") with respect to the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 as to the land listed in the annexed Table No. 1, which was completed on April 19, 1984 by 6256, receipt of the Gwangju District Court's Hau Branch Office, and with respect to the land listed in the annexed Table No. 2 as to the land listed in the annexed Table No. 2, which was completed on April 19, 1984 by 6284, receipt and cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was completed on June 7, 1985 as to the land listed in the annexed Table No. 3, which was completed on June 7, 1985 by 1279, receipt and cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as to the land listed in the annexed Table No. 4, which was completed on June 17, 1975, 1985.

2. Purport and purport of request for retrial

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

With respect to the plaintiff's claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration against the defendant in Gwangju District Court 97Da12639 (hereinafter "the plaintiff's claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration") on February 26, 1998, the above court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on February 26, 1998 that based on the defendant's constructive confession, the procedure for cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration completed in the defendant's name as stated in the attached list shall be implemented as stated in the purport of the claim, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on March 18, 1998 is significant in this court.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion for retrial

The defendant filed a prior suit with the plaintiff's name ambiguously and appointed the non-party attorney-at-law as the plaintiff's legal representative in the prior suit and received the judgment subject to a retrial. In such a case, it may be excluded from the effect of a judgment by retrial, such as the exercise of power of representation. Thus, there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. The Defendant’s assertion

Inasmuch as a lawsuit for retrial cannot be exercised by the obligee’s subrogation right, the lawsuit for retrial of this case filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant is unlawful. Even if not, the Plaintiff, in the prior suit, delegated the litigation to the Nonparty according to the Plaintiff’s genuine intent, and subsequently filed a prior suit. Furthermore, the claim for retrial of this case was improper since the Plaintiff ratified the delegation of the said lawsuit during the continuation of the lawsuit for retrial of this case.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the defense prior to the merits

On the other hand, the fact that the plaintiff for review has a claim amounting to approximately KRW 897,00,000 against the defendant is not clearly disputed by the defendant for review. Thus, if it is necessary for the exercise of property right which is the object of the creditor's subrogation right, the debtor's right in the lawsuit in relation thereto can be exercised in subrogation. Thus, the claim of the defendant for review of this case is unlawful solely on the ground that it has been exercised by the creditor's subrogation right is without merit.

B. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

(1) With respect to the assertion that the Defendant brought a prior suit with the Plaintiff’s name gathered without permission, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: health class, the items of evidence Nos. 5 through 13 (including paper numbers), the record tape verification results of the court of first instance, and the result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground

(2) In addition, even if there is a defect in the power of attorney or the power of attorney necessary for conducting the litigation, if there is a defect in the power of attorney or the power of attorney required for conducting the litigation, it shall not be deemed a valid litigation if there is a ratification under Article 60 or 97 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it shall not be deemed a ground for retrial. Thus, the defect in the plaintiff's power of attorney shall be cured even if there is any defect in the procedure of ratification as above, unless there is any limit on the time of ratification. Thus, in full view of the statement of evidence No. 1, the whole purport of pleading in the statement of evidence No. 1 of this case, the plaintiff shall be confirmed on December 7, 2010 during the retrial of this case, and it shall be confirmed if there is a defect in the process of delegating the litigation to the non-party attorney-at-law who is the attorney-at-law, even if there is a defect in the procedure of the plaintiff's power of attorney.

(3) As to this, the plaintiff's ratification as an act aiding and abetting or completing the defendant's criminal act (Fraud, evasion of compulsory execution, etc.) is obviously contrary to justice and there is no benefit to the plaintiff due to such ratification, so it constitutes an abuse of rights. However, since there is no evidence to deem the plaintiff's ratification as an abuse of rights, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the retrial of this case by the plaintiff on the premise that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, the appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)