The premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant house is transferred to the appellate court by the first instance judgment of a civil case that is separate from the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, even if it was pending in the appellate court, this ground does not constitute a ground for retrial by the Defendant.

Even if the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant house is returned to the appellate court by the first instance judgment of a civil case between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, the cause does not constitute a ground for retrial under the provision of paragraph (1) 8 of this Article.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Re-Defendant)

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff) 1 and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1854 delivered on February 25, 1969

The defendant (Plaintiffs for review)'s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses incurred in filing a request for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for the retrial by the defendant (the plaintiff) is that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) filed a claim for cancellation registration of real estate ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff (the plaintiff) on the ground that the sales contract between the non-party who is named as the representative director of the above company and the plaintiff as to the building in this case is null and void as a matter of course, and the above company won the lawsuit at the first instance trial. The case is still final and conclusive, but the sales contract between the above non-party and the plaintiff on the building in this case, which is the basis of the judgment, is still valid, and the fact that the plaintiff is its owner was changed completely and completely by the judgment of the first instance court of the above case, and it constitutes grounds for retrial as provided in Article 422 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, even if the plaintiff's legal representative's assertion that the above defendants did not own, it is clear that the case constitutes grounds for retrial as provided in Article 422 (1) 28 of the Civil Procedure Act when the judgment or criminal judgment or any other administrative disposition is modified by any other administrative disposition or administrative disposition.

Therefore, the defendants' request for retrial is dismissed without merit. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing parties. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu