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

On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Jeju District Court 2013Gahap1286 on May 28, 2013, stating that “A public official affiliated with the Defendant, etc. illegally acquired land divided from B orchard 7064 square meters of land cadastre’s administrative code by forging the identification number of land cadastre, and paid only compensation calculated under the Plaintiff’s ownership, so the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount indicated in the purport of the claim corresponding to the difference between the reasonable compensation and the compensation already paid,” and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 9, 2014.

On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal under this Court ( Jeju) No. 2014Na101, which rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

Although the Plaintiff appealed against the above appellate judgment, on August 26, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da214427 Decided the dismissal of appeal was rendered and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for a retrial against the instant appellate court judgment under this Court ( Jeju) No. 2015Na14, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the lawsuit for retrial on March 23, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal against the said judgment.

On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for re-deliberation of the instant judgment ( Jeju) No. 2014Na101, and the instant judgment ( Jeju) No. 2015). However, this court rendered a judgment dismissing a lawsuit for re-adjudication on March 29, 2017 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to re-adjudication”). The said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2017.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the existence of the grounds for retrial was forged in the case subject to review.