1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records to this court.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant against the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap10890, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 23, 2013.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the competent court No. 2013Na73324 prior to the review, and subsequently, subsequently, either the Plaintiff exchanged a part of the claims and expanded a part of the claims. Before the review, this court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed each of the claims that were modified in exchange for the Plaintiff’s appeal, extension and exchange on July 2

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision No. 2014Da56140 regarding the judgment subject to a retrial, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on November 19, 2014, which was served by the Supreme Court, became final and conclusive.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. In the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff’s assertion did not state that “each facility listed in the list of annexed facilities No. 1 and each item listed in the list of Attached Table No. 2, which was owned by the Plaintiff, have not been paid reasonable consideration for the reversion to the Defendant, and thus, the ownership of each of the above facilities and trees still belongs to the Plaintiff,” and there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Determination 1) Lawsuits for retrial shall be filed within 30 days from the date a party becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment became final and conclusive (Article 456(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and when the original of the judgment is served on the attorney, barring any special circumstance, the attorney shall be deemed to have become aware of whether the judgment was omitted at the time of being served with the original of the judgment, and barring special circumstances, where the attorney becomes aware of whether the judgment was omitted, barring any special circumstance.