1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. On August 1, 2007, the Changwon District Court Decision 2005Da15270 decided that the plaintiff filed a final judgment for review against the defendant, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim on August 1, 2007, and the plaintiff filed an appeal under Busan High Court Decision 2007Na16212, but on April 24, 2008, the judgment dismissing all the plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended and added at the appellate court (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment for review") was sentenced on April 24, 2008. In other words, although the plaintiff filed an appeal under Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37407, which dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on October 23, 2008, it is clear that the judgment for review became final and conclusive on the day when the plaintiff was sentenced to

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. A. On March 27, 1980, the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the D Farmland Improvement Association, the Defendant’s telegraph, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D Farmland Improvement Association on the same day after completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of D Farmland Improvement Association on the following day, along with the documents, such as the document of confirmation in Chapter E, etc. on the ground that B had already died in 1915, and it is obvious that documents such as the document of confirmation in the above Chapter E have been forged. In the judgment subject to a retrial, there are grounds for retrial corresponding to “when documents and

In addition, the judgment subject to a retrial that held that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship with the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

B. Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When documents or other articles used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered,” a ground for retrial. However, even in this case, a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or a final and conclusive judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive on the act subject to punishment pursuant to Article 451(2) of the same Act