1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. According to the records on the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, ① a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed in relation to the instant deed against the Defendant on November 4, 2014 was rendered on the following grounds: (i) a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed in relation to the instant deed against the Defendant on November 4, 2014; (ii) a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 2, 2015 from the appellate case (this Court No. 2014Na225, the appellant, and the Plaintiff, the appellant) was rendered on June 2, 2015 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”); (iii) a final appeal is dismissed on September 24, 2015 from the case subject to a final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da3809

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s summary of the instant deed was forged, there are grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial different from this conclusion.

B. Determination 1) If the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act are not satisfied, a lawsuit filed for retrial on the grounds of the grounds of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the same Act is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da14462, Sept. 14, 2006). In a case where the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)5 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act are asserted, unless there is any evidence supporting the fact that the judgment of conviction was finalized as to the forged act of the instant deed or that the final judgment of conviction was impossible on the grounds of lack of evidence, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful on the grounds of this, barring any special circumstance. 2) Unless there is any special circumstance, the judgment of the court below

(1) Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the Plaintiff shall file a petition for a retrial on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for retrial. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for retrial, as otherwise alleged in the ground for retrial.