Suwon Gongck Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Hah Ba-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na6385 delivered on December 21, 1994

1. All of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff for Review) for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

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

The decision subject to a review is revoked. The appeal by the Defendants is dismissed. Of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, 1.A., with respect to the portion in the attached Table No. 1 of the real estate list No. 1, in relation to the Plaintiff as to the portion in [Attachment No. 8] owned by the deceased Mag-ro, the lawsuit taken by the deceased Mag-ro, Mag-ro, 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, as to each share in the attached Table No. 1, as to each share in the attached Table No. 7 of the ownership of the Defendant Mag-I-do, Kim Jong-su, Kim Jong-hee, Mag-hee-I-I-I-I-I-D, and as to each share in the ownership of the People

B. Of the real estate listed in No. 2 in the Schedule of Real Estate listed in the Schedule of Attached Property, the above litigants with respect to the shares in the Schedule of Ownership (9) of Attached Property, and the Defendant Round with respect to the shares of 1

C. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, with respect to each share indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 to 8, the above legal proceedings and the Defendants will implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the termination of the title trust on the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of each case, or each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the return of unjust enrichment.

2. Alternatively, among the real estate listed in No. 1 in the annexed Table No. 1, the above litigants will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of an agreement made on September 11, 198 with respect to 1/4 of shares in the annexed sheet of ownership (8) with respect to shares in the annexed sheet of ownership (1/7) with respect to the portion in the attached sheet of ownership (2) with respect to the above litigants, among the real estate listed in the annexed list of real estate (9) with respect to the portion in the attached sheet of ownership (8).

(The purport of the claim and the purport of the review of the case subject to review are all divided to the above litigants, the heir of which is the death of the above lounges.

1. The facts constituting the basis (which shall be remarkable in party members);

In the Jeonju District Court case No. 90Kahap3234 decided July 29, 1993, which filed against the Defendants, the same court accepted the same claim as that of the Plaintiff’s above request for reexamination. However, the same court accepted the above appeal on December 21, 1994 and sentenced the judgment subject to a retrial to revoke the first instance judgment and dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by declaring the dismissal of appeal to the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court case No. 95Da7697 Decided July 14, 1995, which was declared by the Plaintiff, which was declared by the Supreme Court on July 14, 1995.

2. The plaintiff's ground for request for retrial and its judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The judgment subject to the judgment was (1) that: (a) the Plaintiff was entrusted with the title of 7 members, including Nonparty 1, at the time of the circumstance that the Plaintiff, who was a clan of this case, was not a joint ancestor; and (b) the Defendants, the title trustee of the above 7 persons, terminated the title trust with the delivery of the complaint; or (b) the Defendants, who were the heirs of this case, acquired the ownership of each of the above lands divided from 17 U.S., U.S., 17 U.S., 17 U.S., 6 U.S., which was the heir of the above land (hereinafter in this case) on the ground that it was not a joint ancestor for 17 U.S., U.S., U.S., 17 U., U.S., 1988, which was the first time before the division; and (3) the Plaintiff’s claim that the above 100 U.S., U.S., 198 for co-ownership and co-ownership were within the same purport.

However, the plaintiff was found to have changed the name of a mixed vessel, but he had an inherent meaning as a common vessel of the above 1900 clans. At the time of circumstances, the plaintiff was entrusted the above 7 lands owned by the plaintiff to 7 persons, such as white villages. (1) This fact was recognized by the Jeonju District Court Decision 94Da605 decided Oct. 12, 1995, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial of 194Da605 decided Oct. 12, 1995, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial of 200Hun-Ba10, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial of 300, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial of 90, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial of 90, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial by the court of final and conclusive as evidence of the above 190, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a final judgment.

B. Determination

(1) First of all, Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 422 (1) 2 of the judgment previously rendered a new trial is inconsistent with Article 422 (1) 10 of the same Act. This does not constitute a case where res judicata effect of a final judgment which became the subject of new trial conflicts with res judicata effect of the final judgment which was rendered earlier. The above Jeju District Court Decision 90Na3013 decided December 16, 1993 was 94Da605 decided October 12, 1995, which became final and conclusive in the above Supreme Court Decision 95Da7697 decided July 14, 1995, which became final and conclusive in the judgment for new trial, and thus, the above judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have been concluded to have been 900Da1300 decided July 14, 199, which became final and conclusive in the judgment for new trial as well as that of the above judgment for new trial.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the above reasons of the plaintiff's assertion do not constitute grounds for retrial under Articles 422 (1) 7, 10, and 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, all of the lawsuits of this case are unlawful and dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Cho Nam-nam (Presiding Judge)