Where it is recognized that there is a ground for a retrial for reconciliation in court proceedings, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's claim itself, because the right to a new trial on the litigation case is restored, and at the same time the compromise in court is revoked, and there is no data to recognize the plaintiff'

Where it is deemed that there exists a ground for a retrial for reconciliation in court proceedings, the court may dismiss the plaintiff's claim itself on the ground that the right to re-trial the litigation case is restored, and there is no data to recognize the plaintiff's assertion at the same time revoking the compromise in court proceedings.

Article 425 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 431 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1969 delivered on March 19, 1971, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1969 delivered on March 19, 197

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Review Defendant hereinafter only referred to as the Plaintiff) shall be determined.

However, according to the records, at the date of pleading 20th of November 20, 1970, Defendant 1 (the quasi-Appellant) and the attorney, including Defendant 2, etc., at the time of the trial of the court below, stated that they withdraw an appeal against Nonparty 1 (the quasi-Appellant) at the time of the defendant (the quasi-Appellant). Since there is no need to obtain the consent of the other party to file an appeal, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit against the non-party 1, has become final and conclusive, since the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit against the non-party 1, became final and conclusive, and therefore, it is just that the original judgment did not make any decision on it except for the non-party 1 in the party concerned, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss

This ground of appeal No. 2 is examined.

As seen above, it is not reasonable to discuss not only the issue that was naturally resolved in a case where the judgment of the court of first instance, which rejected the defendant's lawsuit for quasi-deliberation against the non-party 1, became final and conclusive, but also that it is not possible to serve as the ground of appeal on the ground of the other party'

The grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4 are determined.

In this case, where the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the above non-party 2 and the defendant (the quasi-Appellant) at the time, 67-2004 Seoul Civil Procedure District Court 67Ga204, and it is obvious that the settlement in the litigation of this case was established between the parties, as in the original edition, that there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the settlement in the litigation of this case was established, the court below may dismiss the plaintiff's claim itself on the ground that the right to re-judgment in the litigation of this case is restored, since the court below shall have the right to restore the litigation of this case and there is no data to recognize the plaintiff's assertion at the time of cancelling the legal reconciliation of this case (the plaintiff has the burden of proof). Accordingly, the court below's interpretation of the legal principles of the quasi-adjudication or the burden of proof cannot

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

The plaintiff asserted that the above non-party 1 conspired with the non-party 3 and the defendant non-party 2 to trade the share of the land in this case which was not sold to the non-party 2 and that the defendant's co-ownership transfer registration was made in the future of the defendant's deceased non-party 2. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above non-party 1 and the defendant's deceased non-party 2 had completed the procedure for the registration of co-ownership transfer of this case's co-ownership transfer. Thus, if it is not possible to recognize the above plaintiff's assertion like the original plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no right to request the cancellation of the registration of co-ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 1 and the plaintiff's non-party 2. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff purchased the co-ownership share in this case from the above non-party 1 to the defendant's non-party 2 is groundless, and this is a legitimate judgment based on the original judgment, and it cannot be justified.

The grounds of appeal No. 6 are examined.

The judgment of the court below recognized that the defendant 2 purchased the co-ownership share of this case from the above non-party 1 and paid the price to the non-party 1, and received the co-ownership share transfer registration therefor from the above non-party 1, while the above non-party 1 kept the seal and the certificate of seal impression as a debt security against the loan borrowed from the defendant 2 to the non-party 2, and the defendant 2 cannot be recognized as the plaintiff's assertion that he forged the sale certificate or other transfer documents in the name of the non-party 1 and forged the sale certificate or other transfer documents in the name of the non-party 2 and forged the transfer registration of the co-ownership of this case, and further reviewed the process or contents of the fact-finding and the fact-finding by comparing it with the records, the court below's determination of evidence and the whole right of fact-finding is not justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)