1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the disposition for non-recognition of refugee status rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 21, 2016, and this court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 29, 2018 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). The Plaintiff appealed with Seoul High Court 2018Nu41602, and the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 10, 2018, and the appellate court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 10, 2018. The Plaintiff appealed with Supreme Court Decision 2018Du52655, Nov. 15, 2018; however, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on November 15, 2018.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties 1) The instant judgment subject to a retrial, which did not recognize the Plaintiff as a refugee, should be revoked, even if the Plaintiff’s return to his own country constitutes a refugee due to the risk of gambling. 2) The instant judgment subject to a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the first instance court, since the Defendant’s assertion in this case was rendered at the appellate court, and there is no legitimate assertion for grounds for retrial.

B. When the appellate court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, it cannot institute a lawsuit for retrial against the judgment of the first instance.

(Article 451(3) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, a suit for retrial filed in the court of first instance against a judgment of the court of first instance, which is not a judgment of the appellate court, shall not be subject to retrial, and it shall be deemed an illegal suit which lacks the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da99092, Jan. 26, 2012). The judgment of the first instance court of this case cannot be subject to retrial, on the following grounds: (a) the health department and the first instance court of this case rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff appealed, but the judgment of the dismissal of the appeal was pronounced.