1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

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

On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for partition of co-owned property on the premise that title trust was terminated in accordance with the sectionally owned co-ownership relation as to the land G 80,399 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) with the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch of the Busan District Court (2013Ga7662). On April 14, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement among co-owners to establish sectionally owned co-owners.”

B. On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed as Busan District Court 2015Na6521, which was dissatisfied with the above judgment. On May 26, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “before the Plaintiff purchases a part of the shares from H, it had already changed the contents of the initial sectional ownership sharing relationship through the modified agreement with H and Defendant D” (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da25621 Decided August 24, 2019, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing a non-trial trial on August 26, 2016, which became final and conclusive as is the judgment subject to a retrial.

On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case.

E. Around February 17, 2020, Defendant D (hereinafter “the network D”) of the judgment subject to a retrial died, and Defendant W and X, the inheritor, took over the proceedings of the network D.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The judgment subject to a retrial was rendered based on the most important and core evidence of the fact-finding agreement on the instant forest (No. 1 No.2; hereinafter “instant modified agreement”) between H and network D, and the said modified agreement was forged. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The judgment subject to a review is clearly false D.