1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by an independent party intervenor.

1. The following facts are clearly recorded:

On September 18, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on September 18, 2008 against the content that the Defendant seeks the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure.

On June 10, 2010, when the appellate court (No. 2010Na2327) case was pending, the intervenor filed an action against the plaintiff and the defendant for intervention by an independent party (this court is 2010Na3672) against the plaintiff and the defendant on June 10, 2010 when the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was accepted.

In the above appellate trial on January 19, 2011, the part of the judgment of the first instance, which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, was revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. When the Intervenor’s claim against the Plaintiff and the Defendant was declared to be dismissed, the Intervenor’s appeal was dismissed, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on June 10, 201 (Supreme Court Decision 201Da13135, 13142). The judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. The Intervenor’s argument that the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act exists (i.e., the Intervenor’s argument that the judgment subject to a retrial has expired in 1955, and thus, the time of death is 1955 under Article 28 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990); therefore, the Intervenor’s heir under Article 997 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be the heir of the Republic of Korea under the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990), which is applicable at the time of death in 1955, rejected the Intervenor’s claim by applying Article 12(2) of the Addenda of the Civil Procedure Act only once by omitting the judgment on

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment.”

Dor. Dor. Dor.