소유권이전등기
1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The following facts are clearly recorded in the judgment subject to a retrial.
On December 30, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on December 30, 2007 against Suwon District Court 2007dan10943, and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on March 13, 2009.
B. Accordingly, the Defendants appealed as Suwon District Court 2009Na10123, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendants’ appeal on January 27, 2010 (the judgment dismissing the Defendants’ appeal). The Defendants again appealed as Supreme Court 2010Da9030, but the appeal was dismissed on April 29, 2010, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.
2. Determination on the grounds for retrial
A. The Defendants asserted that the judgment subject to a retrial was not subject to any judgment even though they asserted in the case subject to a retrial as described below, and that this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted with respect to important matters that may affect the territorial port,” which constitutes grounds for retrial.
(1) In the judgment subject to a retrial, the person who owns a house within the project district of a reconstruction association may obtain the status of the association member by consenting to the rebuilding resolution for long time until the approval for the housing construction project plan is granted, and, unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of association or by the articles of association, the expression of consent is not necessarily required to be made in accordance with a specific procedure and method, and it is sufficient that there is an act or appearance to clarify the intention of consent, and it is sufficient that the articles of association of the association provide for different procedures and methods for the rebuilding resolution, but instead, the representative of the association is not registered in accordance with the articles of association of the association, and the Defendants were acknowledged as the union members according to Defendant B’s expression of intent without the consent
2. Following, the judgment subject to review is: