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 records: (a) the determination of the original judgment is final and conclusive.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as Busan District Court 2012Kadan76979, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on June 13, 2013 (hereinafter "the first instance judgment").

B. The Plaintiff appealed to the judgment of the first instance court as Busan District Court 2013Na11208, but the above court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 18, 2013 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”).

The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the appellate court, but on April 30, 2014, the said appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court Decision 2014Da6084, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

C. On November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The judgment subject to a retrial rejected all the Plaintiff’s claim against the said Defendant on the ground that “it is difficult to view that Defendant C agreed to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff beyond the extent that the Plaintiff consented to use the dispute land as an access road, and it is difficult to deem that a tort against the Plaintiff is established with the Plaintiff and the Nonparty’s completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in the form of a combination of parts divided by Defendant C.”

However, in a judgment related to the instant case against X (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Na15071, Supreme Court Decision 2015Da42285, hereinafter “instant related judgment”), the Plaintiff rendered a judgment different from the judgment subject to a retrial. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. In the judgment subject to a retrial, Defendant B’s attorney stated that “When a dispute arises with the farmland creation cost of the land construction cost, the Plaintiff threatened the Plaintiff to waive the construction, and thus the said Defendant revoked the construction permit.” As such, Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the judgment subject to a retrial.