1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Plaintiff for retrial).

1. The following facts are apparent or apparent in records in the judgment subject to a retrial.

On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance due to the agreement division as of March 9, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants, asserting that Defendant B had occupied the instant land without title, and at the same time filed a lawsuit seeking the transfer of the instant land against Defendant B (this Court Decision 2013No47937), by asserting that Defendant B had acquired the instant land by openly occupying it for not less than 20 years with the intent to own the instant land during the said lawsuit, and that Defendant B occupied it for more than 20 years, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the implementation of the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of the instant land (the court 2014No2577).

B. On September 4, 2014, the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that Defendant B had a duty to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the completion of the prescription for possession of the instant land as to the instant land, and that the Plaintiff, who is liable for such duty, could not seek the return of unjust enrichment from possession against the Defendants, and rendered a judgment citing the Defendant B’s counterclaim.

C. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed [this Court 2014Na32575, 2014Na32582, Counterclaim] against the judgment of the first instance court, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal (hereinafter “the judgment on review”). D.

The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, filed an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da221132, 2015Da2211149). However, on August 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s appeal was made by a judgment of non-judicial decision.