1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

On November 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for claiming transfer, etc. of land, and the court rendered a judgment of the first instance that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on February 8, 2017.

(G) Daegu District Court 2016Kadan38013).(b)

On November 9, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim (including the main claim added and the main claim expanded by the appellate court) by citing the appeal. The appellate court rendered a judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

(T) Daegu District Court 2017Na2654).

On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff served a certified copy of the judgment subject to a retrial and thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da276501). However, on March 15, 2018, the judgment dismissing the judgment was rendered on the ground that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on March 19, 2018, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as is, by serving the original copy

2. Existence of grounds for retrial

A. In the judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff, while recognizing the Plaintiff’s father E’s position and selling the land of this case, the Plaintiff considered it difficult to recognize that the part of the dispute of this case is divided ownership, which constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, which constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment.”

B. In light of the relevant legal principles and the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the grounds of appeal, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and if the judgment of the court below was omitted, if the original judgment was served with the original judgment, it can be known to the party in charge. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it can be argued that there was omission in the judgment at the time of receiving the original judgment, and barring any special circumstance.