2. The defendant (defendant).

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-1 to Gap evidence 5, and the whole purport of pleadings to this court:

In around 1965, 43 persons including the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedures for the transfer of ownership based on each of the following grounds: (a) the Seoul Civil District Court 65Da5470, and (b) approximately 300,000 square meters of the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I and approximately 416 square meters of land (hereinafter referred to as “the land of the Jdong-dong”); and (c) the Defendant received part of the land of approximately 300,000 square meters of the land

On February 8, 1967, the above court dismissed the nine claims including the Deceased, and sentenced the judgment citing the remaining claims of the plaintiffs (the first instance judgment).

In this regard, the defendant appealed the 34 plaintiffs who won the appeal as appellees, and among the nine plaintiffs who lost, six persons including the deceased including the plaintiff were appealed. The court of appeal (Seoul High Court 67Na646) accepted the defendant's appeal against K and L as well as six appeals including the deceased, etc. in December 8, 1967, and revoked the part concerning K, L and L in the judgment of the first instance, and dismissed the claim of K and L, respectively, and accepted the claim of six persons including the deceased, and the defendant's appeal against the remaining 32 persons who suffered the appeal against the judgment of the court of appeal (the judgment of the first instance).

The Defendant appealed on March 19, 1968, but the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal (Supreme Court Decision 68Da106 Decided March 19, 1968) was rendered, and the judgment before the retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

In 1968, the defendant filed a petition for retrial (Seoul High Court 68No. 23) against the judgment of the party before the retrial.

The above retrial case was interrupted during the period in which a criminal trial against the persons involved was pending, and the criminal trial was concluded in 1984 after the completion of all the criminal trials. The above court accepted the defendant's request for retrial on December 6, 1989, and it was prior to the retrial.