토지인도
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016da125744 (hereinafter “instant land”). The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 5, 2017 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”) on the ground that the former owner of the instant land, as the Plaintiff, renounced his/her exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land, F, which is an evidence supporting the Plaintiff and his/her father (hereinafter “F, etc.”) and G, who is the Plaintiff’s father, (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 21, 2017, is obvious in records or obvious to this court.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, etc. were purchased from I on December 12, 1967 from J, 584, K, 511, L, 295, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 1967.
Since then, there was a division and a disposition of replotting regarding the above land as shown in the attached Table, and accordingly, the land category of the instant land was changed to a road.
On November 15, 2017, the date when the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff newly obtained on October 8, 1969 a land division report (Evidence A 35) on the 584 J in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant previous land”) through the disclosure of information from Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 15, 2017, which was not F, etc. at the time when the previous land was owned.
Therefore, division of land in the previous land constitutes an invalid administrative disposition due to a report of partition by a person, who is not the owner, and the judgment subject to a retrial was based on the judgment that was null and void, and there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(2) The Plaintiff is a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.