The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

1. The gist of the grounds for retrial asserted by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) is as follows.

The Defendant’s rejection of the Defendant’s ground of appeal against the lower judgment that determined that the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, deeming H, who has no authority to represent the Plaintiff, as a legitimate representative, and led to the progress and confirmation of the lawsuit.

In addition, on December 3, 2012, before the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant agreed with I, a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff, to withdraw the lawsuit against the Defendant on the instant claim for delivery of real estate, which the Plaintiff raised against the Defendant. According to this, the judgment subject to a retrial was not constituted, and therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial may be changed to the Defendant’s interest

2. The purport of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the defect of legal representation right, etc. as grounds for retrial lies in protecting the party who originally has such defect. As such, it is limited to cases where the other party can benefit by asserting such ground for retrial. Here, the case where benefit can be received refers to cases where the previous judgment may be finally changed to the other party’s interest even for reasons other than the defect of power of representation as above (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da513, Dec. 22, 2000). Examining the original judgment subject to retrial and its records, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the original name of the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate for which the Plaintiff seeks to deliver to the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the other party.