2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In this case, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) asserts that there was a ground for a retrial, which is the fact that the judgment of the original judgment was made duplicate, false facts in the judgment of the original judgment, and that there was error in the judgment of the original judgment, and omission of the judgment of some Defendant (new Defendant). However, all of such grounds for a retrial became aware by the Plaintiff’s reading the judgment of the original judgment of the original judgment of the original judgment subject to a retrial on January 16, 2015, and the Plaintiff was served with the original copy of the judgment of the original judgment of the original judgment on January 31, 2015, and even if the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on January 31, 2015, it is apparent in the record that the lawsuit of the instant retrial was filed only on August 24, 2015, which was 30 days after the said judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, it is unlawful as it fails to observe the period for filing

Furthermore, since the defects that failed to observe the period for filing a retrial cannot be corrected as above, it is so decided as per Disposition by rejecting the litigation of this case without pleading pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.