1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

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

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for removal of buildings, delivery of land, and claim for restitution of unjust enrichment by this court’s 2016da226687. On June 20, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff’s claims.

In response to the above judgment, the Plaintiff appealed as 2017Na35582, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 14, 2017 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff in this case’s retrial judgment”) stating the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second and the third instances as a judgment subject to retrial. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance and the dismissal of the appeal is pronounced, the lawsuit against the judgment of the first instance is unlawful, and when examining the main contents of the petition for retrial and the preparatory documents dated March 8, 2019, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, it may prejudice the judgment of the appellate court that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, to which the judgment of the appellate court is specified as a judgment subject to retrial.”

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da201030, but the final appeal was dismissed on February 28, 2018, and the said judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that the judgment subject to a retrial is an unabrupted possession by the Defendants, and that the succession to possession was not more than 20 years. The stable price was the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the Plaintiff was in possession of sewage, but did not determine the use of and profit from the sewage, but recognized the prescription period for acquisition by deeming that the area of possession by mistake is less than the area of possession by mistake, and thus, the judgment subject to a judgment subject to a retrial would have an important impact on the judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.