1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

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

1. On July 10, 2013, the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Kadan293 rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the restoration of real name with respect to 270/90 shares of C, 3,084 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time he/she resides in the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to original judgment”), which was declared final and conclusive on March 12, 2014 in the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Na262, the Defendant appealed, but appealed against the Defendant, but was sentenced to dismissal on March 12, 2014 in the Daegu District Court Decision 2014Da24846, the instant judgment subject to original judgment became final and conclusive on June 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Cleared Facts

2. Grounds for retrial and determination

A. According to the Supreme Court Decision 93Da54736 Decided April 7, 1995, the division of inherited property by agreement among co-inheritors is a kind of contract between co-inheritors, and the division by agreement between some inheritors is null and void.

However, the instant judgment subject to a retrial was rendered on the premise that the agreement on the division of inherited property is valid, although all co-inheritors did not participate in the preparation of a written consent on the division of inherited property at the time of the preparation of the instant land, and according to the above Supreme Court decision, the agreement on the division of inherited property becomes null and void under the foregoing Supreme Court decision. As such, there are grounds for retrial

B. The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are established to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment subject to retrial. As such, “when a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to institute a retrial conflicts with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the judgment to the parties to the judgment subject to retrial,” which conflict with both judgments