1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff and the selected party).

1. The lower court rendered a judgment on September 29, 2010 by filing a lawsuit against the Defendants for the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration and for delivery of real estate stated in the purport of the claim under this Court Order 2009Da6074, and the lower court rendered a final judgment on September 29, 2010. As to this, the Defendants filed an appeal under this Court Order 2010Na6183, and this court rendered a final judgment on July 22, 2011, “Defendant C shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed on August 14, 207 with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 209Da6457, which was completed on August 14, 2007, with the Plaintiff’s other claims against Defendant C, Plaintiff B’s claims against Defendant D, and Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants of the instant judgment (hereinafter referred to as “the final judgment”), but all of the Plaintiffs’ appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s ground for retrial

A. After the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, in another case (Seoul Northern District Court 2012Na10254) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C (Seoul Northern District Court 2012Na10254), it was proved that both allegations in the lawsuit subject to review and the sales contract submitted by the Defendants were false. The judgment subject to review should be revoked as an unfair judgment by misapprehending the facts based on the Defendants’ false statement and false sales contract, without rejecting N’s testimony, which is a witness.

B. Although it is not clear what is the grounds for a retrial asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendants’ act constitutes “when the documents and other articles used as evidence of the judgment have been forged or altered” under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.