1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

1. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff;

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) for the revocation of the refugee non-recognition disposition against the Plaintiff on December 8, 2016, as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Gudan28269, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 20, 2017.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff appealed to Seoul High Court No. 2017Nu7969 (hereinafter “Case subject to Review”), but the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment subject to review with the purport that the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on February 9, 2018.

C. Although the Plaintiff appealed against this, the judgment of final appeal by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2018Du38024) became final and conclusive on May 14, 2018.

2. The plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the litigation of this case, may face difficulties, such as gambling if he returns to his own country. However, the judgment subject to a retrial is merely a ground for retrial under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which states that the decision subject to a retrial has dismissed the plaintiff's claim due to mistake of facts and incomplete hearing due to a violation of the rules of evidence, and it does

Therefore, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.

(3) As the Plaintiff had already asserted in the instant case subject to retrial and determined it in the judgment subject to retrial, there is no room to deem that there exists any ground for a cause for a retrial for omission of judgment prescribed in Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.