1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).

1.The following facts for which a judgment subject to review has become final and conclusive shall be either apparent in records or obvious to this court:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land as the Cheongju District Court 2015dan10411, and the court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim in full.

B. The Defendant filed an appeal with the same court No. 2015Na11657, and sought implementation of the procedure for registration of creation of superficies on the instant land as a counterclaim. The appellate court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal, and rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Defendant’s above counterclaim filed in the appellate court.

C. The Defendant, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2016Da212791 (principal lawsuit), 2016Da212807 (Counterclaim), but the said appeal was dismissed on June 10, 2016, and the said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. Since the Defendant’s assertion that a witness E was entitled to a false statement as evidence of that judgment, there exist grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.

In addition, the judgment subject to review omitted the judgment (with regard to the defendant's defense and counterclaim as to the plaintiff's claim against the main claim against the main claim against the plaintiff, it appears to have omitted the judgment as to "the plaintiff had acquired the ownership of the building at issue by constructing the building at issue)" and there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 subparagraph 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act to “when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, or interpreter or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party’s newspaper becomes evidence of a judgment” as grounds for retrial. However, each of the above grounds for retrial under Article 451(2) of the same Act.