소유권말소등기
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:
On July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed by the competent court No. 17283 on May 13, 2010, as the Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2010Kahap1417, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the said court rendered the judgment of the first instance court that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 24, 201.
B. On November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed as this Court 201Na2416, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on November 19, 201, as the period for filing an appeal.
2. The Plaintiff asserts as follows on the grounds of the retrial of this case.
First, a testamentary document No. 2264 of March 2009, which was used as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial (Evidence No. 5 of the No. 2009), was modified in the course of its preparation in violation of the provisions related to the Notary Public Act, and D, which lacks the eligibility to be a witness, participated as a witness of a testamentary document, and is null and void because it is contrary to the will of F, the testator.
Nevertheless, the instant judgment subject to a retrial was an invalid testamentary document as evidence, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes “when documents and other items used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered.”
Second, the instant judgment subject to a retrial was based on witness D’s testimony. Since then, the said D was punished as perjury by stating that the testimony was a false statement.
This constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the false statement by a witness, expert witness, interpreter, or the false statement by a party or legal representative based on the party’s examination becomes evidence of a judgment.”
3. Whether the litigation of this case is lawful