1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

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

The Defendant leased the instant real estate to Nonparty D as the owner of the land and building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in the project district of the Plaintiff Union. The Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 75 million to D in subrogation of the Defendant. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming indemnity against the Defendant as the court’s 2014da14727.

B. On June 17, 2014, this Court rendered a judgment accepting all the Plaintiff’s claims, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 10, 2014.

2. Judgment on the defendant's ground for retrial

A. A. The summary of the assertion (1) In the case of a case subject to a retrial, D did not grant the husband E a power of representation, and there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject

(2) Despite the absence of the effect of subrogation, the Plaintiff, by deceiving the full bench by false statement, was rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, there is grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a false statement was admitted as evidence for the judgment) in the judgment subject

(3) The defendant is a cash liquidation agent who did not conclude a contract for sale in lots, and the obligation to pay the settlement money is in a concurrent performance relationship with the obligation to transfer ownership, but there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to

B. (1) On the first argument, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to cases where a lawsuit is initiated by an act of acting as an appointed representative, regardless of his/her own will, and it is apparent in the record that the defendant was conducting a lawsuit directly without appointing the representative in the lawsuit subject to retrial. As such, the grounds for appeal by the defendant are clearly stated in the record.