Park Jong-sap (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Jong-hoon (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

The heir to the property of the deceased Jin-hun(Attorney Hong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4131 delivered on May 4, 1988

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 87Gahap1593 delivered on July 24, 1987

The request for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The appeal by the defendant (only the defendant for a retrial, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal and the costs of a retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

With respect to the 61-2 large 344 square meters in Seongdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff (hereinafter only the Plaintiff) succeeded to the status of bona fide purchaser as prescribed by Article 3 of the amended Rule of the State Property Act (Act No. 3482), among the State Property Act (Act No. 3482), and the Intervenor joining the Defendant confirms that he was not a person who succeeded to the status of bona fide purchaser as prescribed by the same Act with respect to the same

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. The plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were aware of the fact that the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were divided into the above 7th trial court's 10th trial court's 7th trial court's 4th trial court's 7th trial court's 7th trial court's 9th trial court's 7th trial court's 8th trial court's 9th trial court's 9th trial court's 9th trial court's 8th trial court's 9th trial court's 7th trial court's 9th trial court's 1960 court's 8th trial court's 9th trial court's 1960 court's 8th trial court's 9th trial court's 10th trial court's 1960 court's 8th trial court's 10th trial court's 7th trial court's 19th trial court's 10th trial court's 7th trial court's 16th trial court's 2 court's 1.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the above non-party Gap's testimony had no effect on the non-party 4's purchase of the above non-party 1's new trial for new trial because it is highly probable that the above non-party 4's testimony had no effect on the non-party 1's new trial for new trial because the non-party 1's testimony had no effect on the non-party 4's new trial for new trial because it was clearly stated that the non-party 1's testimony had no effect on the non-party 1's new trial for new trial for new trial for new trial because it was clearly stated that the non-party 4's testimony had no effect on the non-party 1's new trial for new trial for new trial for new trial for new trial for new trial for new reasons for new trial for new trial for new trial because the non-party 1's testimony had no effect on the non-party 1's new trial for new trial for new trial for new trial for new reasons for new trial for new trial for new trial for new reasons for new trial for new reasons for new trial for new reasons.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's petition for retrial under the premise that there is a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the plaintiff who lost the above judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-do (Presiding Judge)