1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the claims for the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act are dismissed.

1. The following facts are clearly recorded in the judgment subject to a retrial:

The Plaintiffs asserted that “The transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, for which the instant real estate was completed, was made based on a false letter of guarantee, etc., and thus, is null and void. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant,” and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for cancellation of the transfer of ownership under the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch Branch Office 2013Kadan11399, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim on May 28, 201

B. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs appealed to this Court as 2014Na6675. On February 12, 2015, this Court rendered a judgment dismissing all appeals by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. After that, the Plaintiffs appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da15917, but on June 11, 2015, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive after the dismissal of final appeal was sentenced.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the judgment subject to a retrial constitutes grounds for retrial as stipulated in Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the judgment subject to a retrial was based on evidence of the false statement made by F by a witness of the first instance court, and the summary order of perjury against F's false statement became final and conclusive.

B. Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a witness’s false statement, which is the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, becomes an evidence of the judgment” refers to a case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment, and it is probable that if there was no such false statement, the text of the judgment would have changed. Therefore, the false statement is excluded.