1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

In Daegu District Court 2013Kadan62794, which filed against the Plaintiff, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 1, 2014.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as Daegu District Court 2014Na8996, but the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 24, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

In other words, the Plaintiff filed a final appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10806, but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal on May 14, 2015 by a judgment of non-exclusive trial. The instant judgment subject to a final judgment became final and conclusive on May 19, 2015.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) Nonparty D and N violated the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name by offering title trust with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2; (b) the Plaintiff became aware of the above facts through the notification of the reason for non-prosecution on May 26, 2015 following the judgment subject to a retrial; (c) accordingly, the instant judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when a confession was made, or was obstructed in submitting the means of offence or defense that may affect the judgment, due to any act committed by another person subject

The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to the effect that the aforementioned facts were known after the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive, and that they were not presented as evidence.

The above assertion also appears to have been omitted in the judgment subject to a retrial on the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. As such, it is determined to the effect that there exist grounds for retrial falling under “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment” under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the plaintiff rejected objective evidence in the judgment subject to a retrial, and secured the first and second real estate.