대조1구역정비구역 변경고시 무효 확인
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The plaintiff (the plaintiff) asserts that there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial on the premise that the public notice L, etc. (the "public notice of changed designation of this case" in the judgment subject to a retrial, which is a evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, was forged or altered.
2. Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In the case of Article 451(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment of imposition of a fine for lack of evidence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence.” In order to claim grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the grounds for retrial should be presented along with the fact that the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act have been satisfied, in addition to such grounds for retrial, unless the requirements under Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act are met, and the suit for retrial that asserts the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful, and such a suit for
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da14462, Sept. 14, 2006; 2013Da797, Jan. 23, 2014). However, the judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence became final and conclusive in relation to the aforementioned assertion.
Since no evidence was presented as to the fact that a judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence was impossible for reasons other than lack of evidence, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
Therefore, the suit of this case is dismissed.