소유권이전등기
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
The following facts are apparent in records or significant in this court:
On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, Daejeon District Court 2017Gahap1113, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, and was sentenced to the dismissal of the judgment.
The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance as to the foregoing judgment by the Daejeon High Court 2017Na15278, but dismissed on February 21, 2018 (hereinafter “the judgment on retrial”), and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on February 21, 2018.
On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da221188 Decided March 8, 2018, but was dismissed on June 15, 2018, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
A confirmation document (Evidence No. 8) prepared by R, a summary of the plaintiff's argument about the existence of grounds for retrial, was a document of fact-finding that could affect the text of the judgment subject to retrial.
However, evidence (I's factual confirmation, recording) that the contents of the above written confirmation are different from the fact was found after the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive.
In addition, the court of original judgment concluded the argument without proceeding with the examination of the witness on the R as requested by the plaintiff.
Therefore, there are grounds for retrial falling under the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment.”
Judgment
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 for which the judgment of the court of final appeal was rendered, and if the judgment of the court below was omitted, it can be seen that the original judgment was served on the original judgment if it was read the grounds of the judgment. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it can be known that there was omission in the determination at the time of receiving the original judgment, and thus, it