난민불인정결정취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
1. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff;
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts are significant in this court, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review:
The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) for the revocation of the refugee non-recognition disposition against the Plaintiff on January 22, 2016, as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Gudan25898 (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. On February 10, 2017, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to Seoul High Court 2017Nu39206 (hereinafter “case subject to review”).
C. On July 7, 2017, the above appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. D.
The plaintiff appealed on July 17, 2017, but the Supreme Court sentenced the dismissal of appeal on September 14, 2017, which became final and conclusive.
E. On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case.
2. The plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the litigation of this case, can be faced with difficulties if he returns to Pakistan, who is a home country, but dismissed the plaintiff's claim due to a mistake in mistake of facts and incomplete hearing, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial should be revoked. It does not disclose the grounds for a retrial under Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.
(1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the omission of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the omission of judgment under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff had already asserted in the instant case subject to retrial.