1. All appeals by the Defendant (Plaintiffs) are dismissed.

2. Defendant (Plaintiffs) among the lawsuits for review of this case.

1. The court’s explanation of this part of the judgment subject to a retrial is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing this by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendants' assertion

A. On June 23, 2005, an attorney X divided the amount of 65,752 square meters of G forest land in Youngcheon-gun, Gangwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City prior to the division into 45,917 square meters of G forest land (hereinafter “G forest”) and 19,835 square meters of E forest (hereinafter “instant forest”) in proportion to his/her co-ownership, but he/she forged documents evidencing the judgment subject to a retrial by preparing a false witness examination with the purport that “A and H agreed to own the instant forest, and there was an agreement for A to own the instant forest,” and submitting them to the Youngcheon District Court, which deliberated on the lawsuit subject to a retrial, and submitted the documents evidencing the judgment subject to a retrial. This constitutes a case under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Defendants asserted that Nonparty M, the Plaintiff’s partner, obtained the Defendant’s consent to use the said woodland prior to the said partition from Nonparty He, the Defendant’s partner, and that the Defendants paid the property tax imposed on the instant woodland according to the respective shares ratio, and that the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion in the amount of the secured debt was completed in the M future for G forest. If the Plaintiff asserted, M, instead of owning the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of G forest, should cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, but it is difficult to deem that M entered into the said divided ownership agreement until M repaid KRW 1.3 billion in the position of M. However, the court, which deliberated on the judgment subject to a retrial, falls under the case of Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. Codefendant B appealed against the judgment of Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon Branch 2010Kadan526, and the appellate court revoked the judgment of the first instance, and was sentenced to the judgment that the Plaintiff’s claim against B is dismissed, while the Plaintiff appealed against this, the appellate court dismissed the appeal on March 15, 2012.