1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

On December 3, 2012, the Korean Agency (hereinafter “Korean Agency”) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on December 3, 2012, Daegu District Court 2012Kahap12416, Daegu District Court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall deliver 150 tons of the shower 150 tons of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the shower 150 tons of the instant case”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in Chang-gun, Chang-gun, Magdong, Magdong-ri, 127-2, and on August 22, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the shower 150 tons of the instant case to the Republic of Korea Agency” on the premise that the title trust was terminated on July 13, 2010 after the Korean Agency held the title trust to the Plaintiff.

In the above case, there are the parties, other than the plaintiff, D, E, and F, and there are claims for reimbursement of lease deposit, etc., but only the contents related to this case.

The judgment of the appellate court is also the same.

B. In the appellate court of the instant case, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant received 150 tons of the instant shower 150 tons from the Korea Agency on August 11, 2015, and filed an application for intervention in the Plaintiff’s succession with the Plaintiff seeking delivery of 150 tons of the instant shower 150 tons against the Plaintiff. On April 20, 2016, the appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s application for intervention on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant received 150 tons of the shower 150 tons of the instant show from the Korea Agency, and “the Plaintiff declared a judgment that delivered 150 tons of the shower 150 tons of the instant case to the Korea Agency (Seoul High Court 2014Na2292, 2015Na3076 (Lawsuit of Independent Party Intervention), but the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 27, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lawsuit” is the previous lawsuit, and the said judgment of the appellate court is referred to as the “final judgment of the instant case”).

On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff is the Changwon District Court.