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

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

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are significant in this court.

On February 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on February 3, 2009 against the Defendants on the transfer of ownership based on the cancellation of trust contract, and on the claim for the transfer of assignment of claim and the implementation of notification procedures with respect to the claim for land expropriation compensation deposit payment stated in the purport of the claim. Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, the Seogu District Court rendered a judgment of the first instance that fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. The Defendants appealed against the judgment of the first instance. On April 14, 2011, the Daegu High Court, the appellate court, declared the Defendants to dismiss the Defendants’ appeal. After that, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 4, 2011.

2. Existence of grounds for retrial

A. The Defendant’s Daegu High Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Defendants’ appeal by deeming that “the Plaintiff trusted the real estate, etc. stated in the purport of the claim to the Defendant,” by taking into account the witness’s statement as evidence with sufficient evidence. However, since the aforementioned AF testimony is both false and Defendant BF’s accusation against perjury, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451 subparag. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or the false statement by either party or legal representative by the party’s examination becomes evidence of the judgment) in the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. A lawsuit for retrial based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act may be brought for retrial only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive on the false statement of a witness, party, etc., or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be rendered on

(See Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. AF made a false testimony during the deliberation process of a judgment subject to a retrial.