공무상요양추가상병불승인처분취소
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
The following facts, which have become final and conclusive, are apparent or apparent in this Court’s records:
On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Seoul Administrative Court for the revocation of the non-approval of additional medical care for official duties with the Defendant on September 26, 2012, but was sentenced by the said court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on October 11, 2013.
The Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but the Seoul High Court sentenced the instant judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal as the head of 2013Nu29089 on March 26, 2014.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a second appeal with the Supreme Court on April 10, 2014, but the judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court was rendered on July 24, 2014, and on July 29, 2014, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon being served with the said Supreme Court’s judgment on the Plaintiff.
As to the legitimacy of a lawsuit for retrial of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that the grounds for retrial under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 451(1)1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act were omitted on the homepage of the Seoul Administrative Court, provided that the party asserted the grounds by appeal, or did not know it, if so, the Plaintiff did not raise any retrial. The employees of the Seoul Administrative Court’s comprehensive reception office also stated that the employees of the Seoul Administrative Court should file an appeal that is not a retrial, and received judgment at the appellate court on the appeal. The Plaintiff asserted that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, since this constitutes the time when the judgment court was not constituted under the law.
However, even if the plaintiff could not request a retrial for the same reason by filing a final appeal with the Supreme Court against the appellate judgment, which is the judgment subject to a retrial, it cannot be deemed that the judgment court under Article 451 (1) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act does not constitute a case where the court does not form a court pursuant to law, and the request for a retrial instead