1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts are apparent in records:

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the cancellation registration of ownership preservation by Jeju District Court 2015Kadan11136, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Defendant for the cancellation registration of ownership preservation at the above court 2015Kadan16094. On August 23, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim (hereinafter “the first judgment”).

B. On September 2, 2016, the Defendant appealed as Jeju District Court Decision 2016Na2147 (principal lawsuit) and as Jeju District Court Decision 2016Na2154 (Counterclaim).

On September 14, 2017, the foregoing court rendered a judgment “(i) revoking the judgment of the first instance, accepting the Defendant’s counterclaim claim, and dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against the principal lawsuit,” and (ii) rendered a judgment subject to a retrial on September 20, 2017, the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on the Plaintiff.

C. On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2017Da47871 (principal suit) and 2017Da4788 (Counterclaim). The Supreme Court sentenced the Plaintiff’s final appeal on January 25, 2018, which became final and conclusive on the same day. On January 29, 2018, the said final and conclusive judgment was served on the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the judgment subject to a retrial is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Plaintiff erred by omitting judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment as follows.

① In order to seek cancellation of registration of ownership preservation based on the Plaintiff’s right to claim exclusion of interference based on ownership, or to determine whether there exists grounds for invalidation in the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership preservation, the Defendant should have ownership over the instant land, but the judgment subject to original judgment is determined by the Defendant.