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’s assertion on the grounds for a retrial (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) asserts that there exists a ground for a retrial under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the final and conclusive judgment subject to a retrial on the premise that the public notice L, etc. (hereinafter “instant modified designation public notice, etc.”) of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant judgment for a retrial”) which is a evidence of

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, a judgment of conviction or imposition of a fine for negligence became final and conclusive in relation to the Plaintiff’s assertion as above.

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.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a petition for retrial by asserting that the alteration announcement of the instant case was forged and discovered a new evidence.