1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, such as the confirmation of the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

On January 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants at the Seoul Central District Court by asserting that the Plaintiff is an heir with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) and sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership and the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer. The said court rendered a judgment of the first instance that all of the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on December 14, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, but the appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that all of the Plaintiff’s appeals dismissed on November 16, 2007.

C. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6588), but on March 27, 2008, the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed by a judgment of non-trial trial, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on April 2, 2008, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for reexamination of the instant case.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the grounds for retrial

The deceased’s subsequent wife (the deceased on December 26, 1990) had purchased each of the instant real estate from the deceased, and forged relevant registration documents, thereby completing the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate on September 14, 1972 or October 25, 1972. After which, based on the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate in the name of the deceased, each of the Defendants’ respective registrations of ownership transfer was completed based on the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate in the name of the deceased, based on the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate in the name of the deceased. As such, the judgment subject to a retrial, based on the registration documents forged by the network R, has grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act (the “where the documents and