1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition and confirmation of the previous lawsuit;

A. On July 22, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired a building of 232 square meters and its ground.

B. As a result of the survey conducted on June 3, 201, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff used six square meters prior to Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”) as the site for the above ground building and imposed KRW 1,527,380 of the indemnity on July 25, 201, pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act, from July 4, 2006 to June 3, 201, pursuant to Article 72 of the State Property Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant that “the Plaintiff is only possessing only only a part of the instant land, not a whole size of six square meters,” and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation of the instant disposition, etc. with the Incheon District Court 2017Gudan609. The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 24, 2018.

The above judgment was dismissed on September 6, 2018 by the plaintiff's appeal (Seoul High Court 2018Nu46898) and became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as “the previous suit of this case”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Although the Defendant’s final and conclusive judgment on the previous suit of this case was rendered, the Plaintiff’s re-instigation of the suit of this case violates the principle prohibiting double filing, and thus, is unlawful.

B. Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “a party shall not institute a lawsuit against a case pending before a court.” The requirement is that “a subsequent suit shall be instituted during the continuation of a prior suit.”

However, as seen earlier, the prior suit of this case was already finalized and thus does not constitute “cases pending before the court”.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case.