1. The plaintiff's petition for retrial is dismissed.

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

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 May 11, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the Plaintiff’s master disposition.

(Seoul District Court Decision 2010Guhap1646). The Daegu District Court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the above lawsuit on December 22, 2010. The reason is that “each of the instant lands was incorporated into a park area by the designation and public announcement of the C Park District on May 13, 1980, and is not incorporated into a park area by the Plaintiff’s principal disposition.” Thus, the said lawsuit was unlawful as it was based on a non-existent disposition.”

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance (Tgu High Court 201Nu175), but the Daegu High Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the judgment of the first instance on August 19, 2011.

Although the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court Decision 201Du21683), the judgment of the first instance on December 26, 201 and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on December 26, 2011 due to the dismissal of the final appeal by a trial non-exclusive trial on December 22, 201.

C. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the authenticity of the deed against the Director of the National Geographical Information Institute (the title prior to the change: the Director of the National Geographical Information Institute, which stated that “C Park Boundary Survey (No. 26 No. 26; hereinafter “the instant boundary survey”) is not a document publicly notified by the Defendant on July 30, 1991, which is not a document publicly notified by the National Geographical Information Institute V.”

(U) On June 24, 2016, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the above lawsuit (hereinafter “the instant judgment”). The reason is that the document which is the object of the lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the certificate is a document directly proving the legal relationship. The instant boundary surveying is a document indicating the survey result around the park and directly proving the existence of a certain legal relationship from the record.