공유수면점.사용허가 불허처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff).
1. The Plaintiff filed an application for change of the date of pleading on the grounds that the decision of the Supreme Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for challenge by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was pending in the administrative trial and administrative litigation. However, the court rejected the application, and ordered the case subject to reexamination to be illegally withdrawn on April 21, 2020. As such, there exist grounds for reexamination as prescribed by Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act in the case subject to reexamination.
2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate
A. According to the provisions of Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a retrial may be instituted only with “a final and conclusive judgment,” and at this time, the final and conclusive judgment, which became final and conclusive, is defective by final closing the litigation procedure in the instant case.
In other words, it means a judgment with res judicata, formation power, or executory power that can no longer be asserted as ordinary procedure (Supreme Court Decision 93ReDa27, 34 (Counterclaim) Decided February 14, 1995). This is related to the legitimate requirements for a lawsuit for retrial, which is in violation of this law.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and changes in Eul evidence No. 1, the case subject to review may be recognized as having been terminated as being withdrawn on April 21, 2020 by the plaintiff and the defendant (the defendant for review; hereinafter "the defendant") who had been absent twice on the date of pleading by both parties.
(c)
Therefore, the instant judgment subject to retrial is not a final and conclusive judgment, and there is no need to examine the grounds for retrial. Therefore, the instant judgment subject to retrial is not a final and conclusive judgment.
3. As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.