beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.03.15 2018재구합139

하천사용료 체납처분 취소

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).

Reasons

We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the litigation for retrial of this case.

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) asserts that there was no determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff only owned and resided in the Seoul Seongbuk-gu land and its ground building, and did not possess the area of 111 square meters in possession of the Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul river” in the judgment subject to a retrial, and that there was a ground for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the judgment was omitted on important matters affecting the judgment.”

According to Article 456(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit for a retrial shall be filed within a peremptory period of 30 days from the date when the party to the lawsuit becomes aware of the grounds for retrial after the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Barring special circumstances, the existence of the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the party omitted any judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment” shall be deemed to have known when the party served the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial, and if the judgment becomes final and conclusive after

(2) The judgment subject to a retrial was delivered to the Plaintiff’s legal representative at the time of August 28, 2013, and the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on September 12, 2013 is significant in this court (the Plaintiff’s legal representative appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial on September 11, 2013; the dismissal of the petition of appeal was issued on October 10, 2013, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on September 10, 2013, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on September 12, 2013 and became final and conclusive on September 12, 2013). Barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, becomes final and conclusive on September 12, 2013.