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 are apparent in records:

The Plaintiff asserted that he/she is the true owner of the land indicated in the separate sheet, and filed a lawsuit against the network B seeking confirmation of ownership of the said land and implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name. On May 8, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims.

B. On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed as Daegu District Court 2013Na10657, but the said court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

C. The Plaintiff re-appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19387, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on June 12, 2014, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. A lawsuit for retrial on a final and conclusive judgment that became final and conclusive on the lawfulness of a lawsuit for retrial is permitted only when there exist grounds under each subparagraph of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Where a lawsuit for retrial is instituted on the grounds that do not constitute legitimate grounds for retrial, the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.

Then, the judgment subject to a retrial was rendered without accepting the Plaintiff’s application for witness by making a decision on the legal aid even though the Plaintiff did not file an application for the legal aid, and the procedure of the judgment is unlawful.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the res judicata of a lawsuit between the plaintiff and the deceased B prior to the lawsuit of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the res judicata of the judgment, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the res judicata of the judgment.