1. All part of the lawsuit and the expanded claim for money in this case shall be dismissed.

2. Expenses for retrial.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the instant land and compensation for damages of KRW 600,000 regarding the instant land, was sentenced to the judgment subject to a retrial, and the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive is apparent on the record, by failing to file an appeal by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was in progress prior to a new trial related to Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there was unreasonable points such as obstructing or excluding the Plaintiff’s actual procedural acts. Thus, there exist grounds for new trial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to new trial. 2) The Defendant alleged that there was grounds for new trial under Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, in collusion with a certified judicial scrivener, forged a sales contract, etc., and appears to have completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant land by forging a sales contract, etc...

B. 1) In order to claim as a ground for retrial the defect of the power of attorney under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, or the power of attorney under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is reasonable to view that the unauthorized representative should not be the case where the principal or his/her attorney was unable to conduct the substantive procedural acts due to the defect of the power of attorney.

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da259 delivered on December 22, 1992). (b) The health care unit and the Plaintiff asserted regarding the instant case.