The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by an independent party intervenor.

1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s attached R purchased the instant land from M, and that the Plaintiff acquired prescription by succeeding possession for at least 20 years, and that he/she filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, the heir of M, seeking implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of completion of the prescriptive acquisition, as stated in the purport of this claim, by the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Office 2013Kadan7687, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 28, 2014.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to the Changwon District Court No. 2014Na7005, and this court prior to the review rendered a judgment revoking the judgment of the first instance on September 17, 2015 and accepting the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “the judgment subject to review”).

C. Accordingly, the Defendants appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da60474, but on January 28, 2016, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it was dismissed due to the dismissal of the final appeal by psychological failure.

2. Grounds for retrial of the Plaintiff’s assertion on retrial and its determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) part of this case is the land for which the prescription period has been completed due to the possession of the Plaintiff from around 1992 to the date. Although the judgment subject to a retrial separately determines the Plaintiff’s possession of the land of this case, the judgment subject to a retrial should be determined with regard to the above (b) part and the remaining part of the land of this case, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it did not make an individual decision on the possession of the above (b) part, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.