1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff and the selected party).

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:

On January 28, 2004, the deceased filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”) which was completed on May 25, 1985 by the Jeonjin-gu District Court No. 2004Gadan2689, Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul on May 25, 1985, against the defendant, and on September 24, 2004, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the request of the deceased on September 24, 2004.

B. On June 29, 2005, the deceased appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance as the Gwangju High Court No. 2004Na9359, but the Gwangju High Court declared that the appeal of the deceased A was dismissed.

C. The deceased appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39563, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal of the deceased A on September 29, 2005, which became final and conclusive on October 13, 2005.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership in this case was completed by a will document (No. 2, hereinafter “instant will document”) of the network that forged or altered the ownership transfer registration. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

B. In a case of filing a lawsuit for retrial pursuant to Article 451(1)6 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for retrial may not be filed at the lapse of five years after the determination of the judgment subject to retrial, even though the parties did not know of the grounds for retrial, where the “the grounds for final judgment of conviction, such as the death of a suspect or the completion of the statute of limitations,”

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2341 delivered on December 13, 1988, etc.). C.

Judgment

1. As stated in the former part of Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff’s act of forging the instant testament certificate, which served as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, became final and conclusive.