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. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant to seek the primary claim against the Seoul Northern District Court 2013da23119, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim with the same court 2013da31202, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff’s main claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim.

B. As to the judgment of the first instance court in the judgment subject to a retrial, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were dissatisfied with this Court’s 2014Na21777 (principal lawsuit), and each of them appealed under 2014Na2183 (Counterclaim), and the Plaintiff added the first and second preliminary claims at the said appellate court.

On August 5, 2016, the above court dismissed all the plaintiff's appeal and each conjunctive claim added at the above appellate court.

(In the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant appealed against the counterclaim, but the appeal was withdrawn on December 14, 2014 and was excluded from the scope of the judgment).

On November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da244750 (principal suit), and 2016Da24767 (Counterclaim), but the judgment subject to a final appeal became final and conclusive on November 24, 2016.

2. The gist of the cause of request for retrial is that the Plaintiff: (a) purchased forest land Nos. 1 and 2 from the Defendant and constructed two houses by purchasing it from the Defendant (Evidence No. 33); (b) the Plaintiff directly resided in the vegetable forest land No. 1 and 2; (c) a photograph (Evidence No. 32-1, 2, 3); (d) a confirmation of the fact that he/she proves that he/she entrusted the management of the said two houses to H around October 207; and (e) a certificate of the fact that he/she entrusted the management of the said houses to H, around October 2013; and (e) a public charge payment statement (Evidence No. 14-18) that the Plaintiff directly resided in and paid the houses located in the 1 and 2 forest land (Evidence No. 14-18).

This is an important evidence proving that the Plaintiff possessed forest land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, but the court of the above appellate trial did not judge it at all.