1. The court shall dismiss the action for review of this case, which was changed in exchange for another court.

2. The total cost of the litigation for retrial.

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the instant judgment subject to review, are apparent or apparent to this court.

On April 29, 2015, the Defendant issued a notification that the Plaintiff excluded the Plaintiff from the person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had owned one-story house on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si C’s ground ground ground and roof (hereinafter “instant house”) since before December 23, 2005, the date on which the Plaintiff was selected as the person subject to relocation measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. Accordingly, on May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition (U.S. District Court 2015Guhap65002). On February 16, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the instant house from D around February 17, 1987, and owned the instant house.”

C. The Plaintiff appealed against this and appealed (Seoul High Court 2016Nu38893). However, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 30, 2016 (the instant judgment subject to a retrial) (Supreme Court 2016Du50808), and the Plaintiff appealed (Supreme Court 2016Du508), but the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 15, 2016.

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

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he continued to reside in the instant house since he purchased the instant house from D on February 17, 1987.

After the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff discovered new evidence to prove that “the Plaintiff purchased the instant house on February 17, 1987,” and according to the evidence, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant house since the Plaintiff purchased the instant house on February 17, 1987.