Cases falling under the case where a final judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than the defects of evidence under Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

When it is impossible to make a final judgment of conviction for reasons other than the defects of evidence in Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall include the cases where it is impossible to make a final judgment of conviction for reasons other than the defects of evidence during the trial of the court, and the cases where the prosecutor made a disposition disadvantageous to him by general amnesty during the investigation.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 66Da330 decided June 27, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1479; Supreme Court Decision 15 ② 96; Decision Decision 422(57) 1019 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju High Court (62Na247)

The judgment of the previous lawsuit shall be revoked.

The appeal by the Plaintiff (Re-Defendant) is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 1 followed the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on June 18, 1959 by the Jeonju District Court No. 729, Sep. 12, 1959, Lee Jong-ju District Court No. 729, Sept. 12, 1959, 1959, for Non-Party 1, the Yasan-gun, Yasan-gun, Yasan-gun, Jeollabuk-do.

Defendant 2: (a) On November 6, 1961 with respect to the above real estate, the Jeonju District Court No. 8,877 received a Riy District Court registry office on November 6, 1961, followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration on November 1, 1961.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

Purport of request for retrial

The text shall be as shown in the text.

First of all, we will examine the legality of the litigation for retrial.

The summary of the defendant (the plaintiff)'s ground for retrial is 62Na247, defendant 1 and the defendant 2's appeal against the defendant 1 for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the invalidation of the reasons between the plaintiff 1 and 2, but the judgment was finalized at the same time on May 23, 1963. The defendant 1 was due to the non-party 1's false statement of the witness 1 and the defendant 2's appeal against the non-party 1. The defendant 9's appeal against the defendant 1 was affirmed on December 14, 1963. The non-party 2's appeal against the defendant 1 for retrial cannot be affirmed by the non-party 1's new trial because the right of prosecution against the non-party 1 was extinguished by the general amnesty No. 1,678, and the non-party 1's new trial cannot be established by the non-party 2's new trial because the non-party 1's new trial cannot be established by the non-party 1's new trial.

First, as to the claim against the plaintiff 1, the defendant (the plaintiff in the main lawsuit) purchased the real estate in this case and movable property in its attached list from the non-party 1 on July 13, 1959 to 1,850,000 (oldization) and used the above real estate after being delivered from the non-party 1 on the same day. Despite the fact that the plaintiff 1 purchased the above real estate from the non-party 1, the plaintiff 1's purchase of the seal is the same as that of the non-party 1, so the registration shall not be exempted from the cancellation because the registration is the same as that of the non-party 1. Thus, although the defendant asserted that the non-party 1 was properly purchased and the non-party 1 was requested to cancel the registration, it is difficult to recognize the non-party 1's testimony and the part of the non-party 1's each testimony and the part of the non-party 1's non-party 1's new trial, the plaintiff's testimony and the non-party 1's witness's witness's testimony are not acceptable.

Next, the claim against the plaintiff (the defendant in the principal lawsuit) against the defendant 2 is based on the premise that the defendant's claim against the plaintiff in the retrial is legitimate, or as long as the defendant's claim against the defendant in the retrial is rejected as unjustifiable, it is clear that it is without any further determination. Therefore, the appeal by the defendant in the original judgment, which is the purport of the appeal, is without merit, and all costs of the appeal are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant in

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)