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. The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial do not conflict between the parties, or are distinguished to this court.

On May 26, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants occupied and used part of each land listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff without any legal title, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking removal of the building and delivery of the land.

B. Based on the results of verification and appraiser D’s appraisal, the Plaintiff modified the purport of the claim as stated in the above purport of claim, and this court rendered a judgment that fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on March 23, 2012 (hereinafter “the subject judgment of review”).

The Defendants filed an appeal on May 2, 2016, but withdrawn an appeal on October 10, 2016, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 17, 2012.

2. The Defendants’ assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial is based on the result of an appraisal surveyed by an appraiser D, different from the actual one, and thus, there are grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment

3. Determination

A. The Defendants filed a lawsuit for the retrial of this case on the grounds that the appraisal result of the appraiser was false, and the grounds for retrial asserted by the Defendants do not fall under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when the false statement of a witness, appraiser or interpreter or the false statement of a party or his/her legal representative by the party examination becomes evidence of a judgment,” a retrial suit may be instituted under Article 451(1)7 of the same Act only where “when the judgment of conviction against an act subject to punishment becomes final or a final judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence” is not satisfied as to the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the same Act. Thus, a retrial suit is unlawful if the requirements under Article 451(

Supreme Court Decision 2006No. 1206 Decided January 12, 2006