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, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, including the restoration of land to original state, etc., Jeju District Court 201Gahap25444, which sought a judgment as to the aforementioned purport of the claim. On February 2, 2012, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that “The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of ownership against the Defendant, the part of each registered titleholder’s claim for cancellation of the registration of change of ownership, and the part of each claim for information disclosure, are all dismissed, and all of the remainder of the Defendant’

B. On August 22, 2012, the appellate court appealed against the above judgment of the first instance, and rendered a judgment to the effect that “all appeals by the Plaintiff are dismissed,” and the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but on November 29, 2012, the appellate court rendered a judgment to the effect that “all appeals by the Plaintiff are dismissed.”

C. On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for a retrial with the Residential Department of Gwangju High Court ( Jeju) (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on August 23, 2013. On June 11, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for a retrial (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). Although the Plaintiff filed a final appeal regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff’s rejection of the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of a lawsuit for retrial

A. Since the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the grounds for a retrial forged an administrative code of land cadastre and an illegal registration has been completed, land should be restored as claimed by the Plaintiff.

Although there was no final judgment of conviction against the above forgery, it was forged in light of the fact that the administrative code of land cadastre violates Article 65 and 66 of the Rules of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (No. 762).