1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

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

As Seoul District Court Decision 2002Kadan21549, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancelling the provisional registration of this case by asserting that, even if there was no pre-sale agreement, which is the act of causing the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”), which was completed on January 16, 2001 by the Gangnam-gu Seoul District Court registry office of the Seoul District Court (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”), or that there was no provisional registration of this case,

B. On February 5, 2003, the above court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that "The sale price of the apartment of this case was actually paid by the defendant and her husband (the plaintiff's husband)" and the plaintiff made the provisional registration of this case in order to preserve the defendant's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership, so the plaintiff's assertion that the non-existence of a cause act or false conspiracy constitutes false representation

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the above court 2003Na1164, but the above court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 13, 2003. In the case of Supreme Court Decision 2003Da68123, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da68123 Decided March 25, 2004, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal.

2. The plaintiff's assertion on grounds for retrial

A. At the time of the promise to sell on January 15, 2001, the Plaintiff, which was the cause of the instant provisional registration, set the transaction amount of the instant apartment at KRW 90 million at the market price. The Defendant did not fully pay the purchase price under the instant apartment sales contract to the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, following the pronouncement of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, sent a content certificate to the Defendant three times (round December 12, 2003, April 16, 2004, August 24, 2004) and rescinded the instant real estate trade reservation on the ground that the purchase price was unpaid.