1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts are apparent or apparent in records in the judgment subject to a retrial.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, by forging documents, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to cancel the registration of ownership transfer under the court 2014Da16191, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 18, 2014.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance court, and appealed to this court as 2015Na50144, and the Defendant also filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff at the appellate court as 2015Na56340, which was the first instance court, against the Plaintiff. The said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 24, 2015, while accepting the Defendant’s counterclaim, and sentenced the Defendant’s favorable judgment with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant” (hereinafter “the review judgment”).

C. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2016Da208716 (principal suit), 2016Da208723 (Counterclaim), but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 26, 2016 by dismissing the final appeal.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the judgment subject to a retrial should be accepted since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sales contract of this case was forged by reliance on the witness C’s false testimony.

B. (1) In order to file a suit for retrial, there should be grounds for retrial listed in Article 451(1)1 through 11 of the Civil Procedure Act. If a suit for retrial does not have such grounds for retrial, the suit is unlawful and thus ought to be dismissed.

Although the Plaintiff did not specifically state the issue of whether or not the Plaintiff filed a suit for review of the instant case on any of the grounds for retrial, the Plaintiff’s assertion is examined.