1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff shall bear the costs of retrial.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial:

On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for restitution of unjust enrichment, etc. by Busan District Court Decision 2014Da54010, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention in succession on January 13, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor against the Defendant.

B. Although the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed an appeal as Busan District Court 2015Na10179, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on June 22, 2016 (hereinafter “the retrial judgment”), the appellate court rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on June 22, 2016 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s judgment”) and both the above Busan District Court 2015Na10179 and the Supreme Court 2015 Supreme Court 2016Da31015 Decided the final appeal to be the subject of retrial. However, the grounds for retrial stated in

C. Although the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff filed an appeal by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da31015, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 30, 2016, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's successor's assertion

A. The claim for the revocation and restitution of the gift contract of this case on the ground of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act is not included in the subject matter of lawsuit of Busan District Court Branching Busan District Court Decision 201Da29491, which is the basis of the judgment subject to retrial, such as fraudulent act, etc., Busan District Court Decision 201Na29491, Busan District Court Decision 2013Na1260, etc. (hereinafter referred to as

However, the judgment subject to a retrial is a cause for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s appeal was dismissed by erroneous interpretation of the judgment of the relevant case that the claim on the instant vinyl was included in the subject matter of a lawsuit.

B. Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act