1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a co-owner of the share of 1/3 out of 853m2 (hereinafter “instant forest”) in Chungcheongnam-nam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking transfer of land and unjust enrichment against the Defendant, who is the possessor of the instant forest, as stated in the purport of the claim, under Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch Office 2017Gadan2383.

On June 28, 2018, the above court rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the portion 107 square meters for “1” portion of “10,216 square meters in the instant forest connected with each point of attached Table 1 through 6, and 107 square meters in order to the Plaintiff, and shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 16, 2017 to June 28, 2018 and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, and shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 1,010 won per month from September 16, 2017 to the day of complete delivery of the said portion of land (hereinafter “the subject judgment for review”).

The judgment subject to a retrial was finalized on July 17, 2018.

【In the absence of dispute, the fact that there is no dispute, significant fact in this court, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the defendant’s assertion that the forest land of this case is the land owned by D and E in addition to the plaintiff, or the land owned by the original clan.

However, without being delegated by the Plaintiff against the will of D, E, or clans, the Plaintiff independently filed a claim for extradition and unjust enrichment against the Defendant and received the judgment subject to a retrial.

Judgment

If a retrial suit is asserted as a ground for retrial that does not constitute a legitimate ground for retrial, it shall be dismissed as it is unlawful.

(2) Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act exist in the judgment subject to retrial” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307, Oct. 25, 1996).”

Even if ex officio review is conducted, each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the judgment subject to review.