1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

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

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the confirmation of the authenticity of the deed as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kadan154305, and the above court rejected the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on May 11, 2017 on the ground that “The Plaintiff (Plaintiff hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s filing a false confirmation of the content of the contract of this case and sought confirmation of the truth by asserting that the content of the contract of this case was false is not related to whether the said written document was actually prepared according to the intent of the person in whose name the document was prepared, but is consistent with the objective legal relationship. Therefore, it is not subject to a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed, and as long as C had already filed a separate lawsuit against the Plaintiff based on the contract of this case and filed a down payment with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Ga318509, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016. Therefore, the instant lawsuit was dismissed on the ground that there was no benefit

(hereinafter “Judgment of the first instance court”). (b)

In response to the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff filed an appeal as Seoul Central District Court 2017Na35624, but the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the judgment of the court of first instance on November 16, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on review”); the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2017Da28505 Decided February 8, 2018; however, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal for non-trial trial on February 8, 2018; and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff on February 12, 2018, and became final and conclusive as the judgment subject to review.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is forged by, or forged by, the Defendant’s reference C, and the Plaintiff was not notified of the assignment of the above claim. As such, there is a ground for retrial under Article 450(1)6 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. Grounds for a retrial under Article 450(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act