1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

purport, purport, ..

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. As to the 3/5 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff selectively filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on January 12, 1970, or on January 12, 1990, demanding the transfer of ownership based on the transfer on January 12, 199, or demanding the transfer of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting the claim on July 9, 2014.

B. The Defendant appealed against the above judgment as the Daegu District Court 2014Na303103 (hereinafter “Case subject to Review”), and the Plaintiff selectively changed the purport of the claim to seek ownership transfer registration based on ① ownership transfer on May 7, 1979 or ② ownership transfer registration based on the completion of prescriptive acquisition on May 7, 199. The appellate court accepted the claim to be changed on July 1, 2015 and sentenced the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “the judgment subject to review”).

C. The Defendant appealed and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da228287. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal by a judgment on October 29, 2015, which became final and conclusive upon delivery to the Defendant on November 2, 2015.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Court's substantial fact

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s summary of the case subject to quasi-deliberation was decided by the Plaintiff’s false statement, and the Plaintiff pointed out the Plaintiff’s false statement, and omitted judgment on it even though the Defendant alleged that he possessed the instant real estate. As such, the Defendant under Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial was based on the grounds for a retrial on May 11, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement by a witness, expert witness, interpreter, or legal representative by the party’s examination.