The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).

purport, purport, and.

1. The facts under the underlying facts are either apparent in the records or obvious to this Court.

The deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”) asserted that the acquisition by prescription for real estate subject to reexamination was completed on November 5, 2004, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on November 5, 2004, on the following grounds: (a) the part (a) of the ship connected with each point of the attached Table 1 No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1 among the real estate listed in the attached list, was occupied by the intention of ownership for 40 years; and (b) the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the registration of transfer on the ground of

(Seoul Northern District Court 2008da74700).(b)

On November 5, 2004, the court of the above case recognized that the prescriptive acquisition of real estate subject to reexamination has been completed, and sentenced on November 12, 2009, which accepted the claim of the deceased on November 12, 2009, and on October 29, 2010, the defendant's appeal against the above judgment was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on November 20, 2010.

C. The Deceased died in around 2013, and the Plaintiffs are the heir of the Deceased.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s assertion (the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs regarding the removal of a ground structure and the transfer of the above real estate in the order of each point of 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 10, 10, and 6 that are indicated in the separate sheet among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “real estate subject to a subsequent suit”) and filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs for the registration of transfer of ownership on the grounds of the allegation that the prescriptive prescription for the real estate subject to a subsequent suit has been completed against the Defendant as a counterclaim by the Plaintiffs (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Da138704, 1217Kadan1738 (Counterclaim)). The above court accepted the Defendant’s claim on February 6, 2018 and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim on the counterclaim by the Plaintiffs. However, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal against this.