A. Where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, the propriety of retrial against the judgment of the first instance court

(b) A copy of transfer to the lower court’s higher court’s lower court’s higher judgment;

A. In a case where the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, the propriety of the trial on the first instance judgment is appropriate.

B. A copy of the transfer to the lower court’s higher court.

Article 422(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 31 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na89 delivered on April 20, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na89 delivered on April 20, 1971

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant (the plaintiff in retrial = hereinafter referred to as the defendant's abbreviation).

According to the records and the reasoning of the original judgment, this case was pointed out that the court of first instance against the defendant of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant for retrial") rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on December 2, 1963 as to the claim for cancellation of real estate ownership transfer registration, and that the collegiate panel rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on December 10, 1964 as to the mobilization of the 64Na44 case caused by an appeal against the above judgment, rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal as of December 10, 1964, and the judgment became final and conclusive as the same in the first and second judgments, as the defendant alleged in the above, (which adopted the testimony of the non-party of the case as evidence for fact-finding, for which the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive), but it was not erroneous in the judgment of the court of first instance, which stated that the court of first instance and the first instance, which did not violate the provisions of Article 422 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and that it was a new suit.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu