1. All of the lawsuits for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. In the judgment subject to a retrial, on April 28, 1978, the former Defendant deceased F, the mother of the Defendants, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on April 20, 1978 with respect to the land and building in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large 69 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 33.06 square meters in a single-story shop 23.06 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Plaintiff A’s husband and the father of the other Plaintiffs, who are the father of the Plaintiff and the father of the other Plaintiffs, completed the provisional registration on April 28, 1978 on the land and building in this case on the grounds of a pre-sale on April 20, 1978.

B. In the previous lawsuit, on April 20, 1978, the Plaintiffs asserted that the net I purchased the entire land and buildings of this case from H, and that the entire land and buildings of this case were completed provisional registration as above.

However, the judgment subject to a retrial was determined that on April 20, 1978, the network F and the network I jointly purchased the instant land and buildings from H by one and two shares, and only the registration was made as owned by the networkF, and it was not determined at all as to the completion of provisional registration on the instant land and buildings in excess of their shares while LI purchased only one and half shares of the instant land and buildings, and completed provisional registration on the instant land and buildings in excess of their shares. Thus, this constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on the important matters that may affect the judgment,” which is the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The Plaintiffs discovered a sales contract (Evidence A No. 19) to prove that the deceased I recently purchased the instant land and building from H, and confirmed that the said sales contract was duly formed through documentary appraisal around August 9, 2016, and became aware of the existence of such grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial.

Since the Plaintiffs filed the instant suit for reexamination on September 7, 2016, which was within 30 days from that date, the period for filing the petition for reexamination was observed.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant suit for retrial is made.