2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 21, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal disposition of this case by asserting that the dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on January 17, 2001 (hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) was not by the genuine intention of resignation, but by coercion during the process of the disciplinary action, and on the other hand, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 18, 2002 on the ground that the dismissal disposition of this case was based on the Plaintiff’s intention of resignation (2002Guhap1509).

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an appeal with Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu12481, and the Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6948 Decided August 26, 2003 was all dismissed.

B) On December 9, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal disposition of this case on the grounds that the resignation which was the cause of the dismissal disposition of this case was forged and void. On May 17, 2006, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment of dismissal (2005Guhap39492) on the grounds that the dismissal disposition of this case is in conflict with the res judicata effect pursuant to the previous judgment against the previous judgment against the Defendant on May 17, 2006. While the Plaintiff filed an appeal, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment of dismissal of appeal (2006Nu13178) on November 14, 2007, and the above judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on December 7, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted on June 28, 2011 that the dismissal disposition of this case was null and void, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea as a state public official under the jurisdiction of the Seoul High Court as a state public official under the jurisdiction of 21.