변상금부과처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to this court:
On November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant against the Defendant, as Suwon District Court 2016Gudan2940, which sought revocation of the disposition imposing indemnity of KRW 23,779,980 against the Plaintiff on August 29, 2016, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on March 24, 2017.
B. On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court (2017Nu42424), and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.
The original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on September 22, 2017 on the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2017Du62709, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal on December 7, 2017 due to a trial non-competence judgment, and the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff on December 11, 2017, and the judgment subject to final judgment became final and conclusive.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the judgment subject to a retrial omitted the judgment on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to prove mushroom cultivation, which constitutes “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment,” and there is grounds for retrial falling under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. In light of the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the judgment 1 administrative litigation, a lawsuit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court below was omitted, if the original judgment were to be served with the original judgment, it can be known if it read the grounds for appeal. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it can be known that there was omission in the judgment at the time of receiving the original judgment, and thus,