1. All of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff for Review) for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the retrial are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendants by asserting that, as Changwon District Court Decision 2010Kadan5291, the Defendants owned the Plaintiff’s “Fam2,077 square meters of forest Fam2 in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and, without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendants committed tort against the Plaintiff, which caused damage to the Plaintiff’s grave located in the said forest and fields, and thus, the Defendants are liable for compensation as stated in the purport of the claim.” The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 22, 2010.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against it, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on December 24, 2010 (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Na8031, hereinafter “Seoul District Court Decision”) and the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial on January 17, 2011, but the appellate court’s rejection order of the petition for final appeal became final and conclusive on January 25, 2011 as the order to dismiss the petition for final appeal became final and conclusive on February 17, 2011.

2. Judgment on grounds for retrial

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant D and E set up a clan for the purpose of deceiving the instant forest, and made a false statement that there was no three graves on the land of the instant forest, and no part of the grave funeral expenses was paid. The judgment subject to a retrial was rendered based on evidence. As such, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial. 2) The Defendants’ legal representative, at the time of the judgment subject to a retrial, made a false assertion by denying the existence of the graveyard in the instant forest, which existed in the instant forest at the time of the judgment subject to a retrial, and fabricated evidence, and participated as an accomplice in the criminal act of fraud by purchasing the full bench. As such, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)3

B. On November 30, 201, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment subject to a retrial with the Changwon District Court Decision 201Na155, supra.