1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are clearly recorded in the judgment subject to a retrial:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the termination of title trust with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet by Changwon District Court Decision 2005Da25642, and the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 10, 2007.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff appealed as Changwon District Court 2007Na1450 on August 31, 2007, and the above court revoked the first instance judgment and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s primary claim (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the Defendant appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2007Da67869 on January 31, 2008, but the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive as it is, even though the Defendant appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2007Da67869.

2. Determination on the grounds for retrial

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant filed the lawsuit of this case after registering the plaintiff as a clan using a forged private document, and that the decision subject to a retrial was based on the witness's perjury, and therefore, the defendant asserts to the effect that it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 and 7 of the

B. We examine the judgment, and in the case of the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for retrial may be filed only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive on the act to be punished, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered on the grounds other than lack of evidence. Therefore, a suit for retrial that asserts the grounds for a retrial under Article 45

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant satisfied the above requirements with respect to the instant case. Rather, the original District Prosecutors' Office on March 31, 2008 regarding the crime of forging private documents, the crime of uttering of an investigation document, and perjury against M which the defendant filed a complaint.