Domina (Attorney Jeong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Lee & Lee, et al. (Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Gahap1989 delivered on October 10, 1990

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na51189 delivered on October 1, 1991

1. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's title was made on August 7, 1980 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Resident's District Court, No. 32078, which was received on August 7, 1980; the defendant's title was made on April 2, 1982 by the receipt No. 12458, which was received on April 2, 1982; the defendant's title was made on November 6, 1984 by the receipt No. 53458, which was received on November 6, 1984 by the same registry; the defendant's title was signed on June 19, 1989 by the same registry; and the defendant's title title was fulfilled with respect to each ownership transfer registration made on June 19, 1989 by the same registry.

(Preliminaryly for the Defendant’s objection, the Defendant’s objection shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 16,00,000 and an annual interest rate of KRW 25,000 from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

The judgment subject to review shall be revoked.

(B) The decision of the court below is revoked. The decision of the court below is revoked. The plaintiff is revoked. With respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet, the defendant Lee Woo-dong District Court of Seoul, Jung-gu, 1980 received on August 7, 1980 by 32078, and completed on April 2, 1982 by 12458, which was accepted on April 2, 1982 by 12458, and the defendant Hwang Woo-dong was made on November 6, 1984 by 53458, which was accepted on November 6, 1984 by the same registry, and the defendant Lee Woo-dong will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on June 19, 1989

(Preliminaryly, with respect to the Defendant’s objection, the part of the Plaintiff’s failure to order payment under the original judgment shall be revoked. Defendant’s objection shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,323,079 and the amount at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Judgment subject to retrial;

On January 12, 1990, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for cancellation of ownership transfer registration (16,000,000 won in preliminary settlement with respect to the Defendant’s interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-based interest-

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the litigation for retrial

Defendant Lee In-bok, even if there were grounds for retrial in a judgment subject to retrial, filed a lawsuit for retrial with the lapse of the period prescribed in Article 426 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful. However, it is obvious that the lawsuit of this case was filed on May 9, 1996, which was within 30 days from the above date, and that the lawsuit of this case was filed on May 28, 1996. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is groundless.

3. Determination on the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for retrial under subparagraph 6 of Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, which is a ground for retrial of this case, that the evidence Nos. 3-4 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) which was admitted as evidence of the judgment subject to retrial was forged, but since a final judgment of conviction or a final judgment of fine cannot be rendered on the grounds other than lack of

B. Therefore, as to the fact that the above certificate of personal seal impression (No. 3-4 of the above certificate) was forged as the plaintiff's certificate, it is hard to believe that the above certificate of personal seal impression No. 12 (certificate No. 3-4) is a copy of the above certificate of personal seal impression as the result of the appraisal of the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression No. 12 (certificate No. 3-4) and the appraisal of the fact that the above certificate of personal seal impression No. 12 was forged as the plaintiff's certificate of personal seal impression, so it is hard to believe that the above certificate of personal seal impression No. 12 is not guaranteed, and the above certificate of personal seal impression No. 3-4 of the above certificate of personal seal impression No. 12 is different from that of the above certificate of personal seal impression No. 3-4 of Jan. 8, 1980. The above appraisal result is different from each other, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the above fact.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the litigation of this case is dismissed as it is not possible to acknowledge the existence of the grounds for retrial. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Soo (Presiding Judge)