1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. 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:

On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming state compensation by asserting that “the Plaintiff sustained property damage and mental loss due to the Defendant’s unlawful transfer order or disciplinary action” was the Busan District Court 2012Gahap9495, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 9, 2013.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed by this Court No. 2013Na50909, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 31, 2013 (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the judgment subject to a retrial, appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da216853, but the final appeal was dismissed on February 28, 2014, and on March 6, 2014, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon receiving the original copy of the judgment.

2. Whether the lawsuit for retrial of this case is legitimate or not, the Plaintiff cited Article 451(1)7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act on the grounds of the request for retrial of this case. Thus, we examine whether there are grounds for retrial as alleged by the Plaintiff in the judgment subject to retrial.

A. Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)7 of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a ground for retrial. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected on the basis of false statement as to whether the formation of a unit to which the Plaintiff belonged was reflected in the military unit plan. As such, there exists grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)

Article 451(1)7 of the Procedure Act provides that “when the false statement by a witness, appraiser, or interpreter or the false statement by a party or legal representative by the party examination becomes evidence of a judgment,” the grounds for retrial are stipulated as grounds for retrial. However, in this case, a judgment of conviction or fine for negligence against an act subject to punishment pursuant to Article 451(2) of the same Act.