The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

The Defendant conducted the second examination, which is an essay-type written examination, from August 2, 2016 to August 6, 2016, and from November 29, 2016 to November 30, 2016, respectively, for the purpose of open competitive employment of national public officials of Grade V (technology) in 2016.

B. While the Plaintiff applied for the above open competitive recruitment as occupational category of industry (general machinery) and completed the third examination after undergoing the second examination, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of failure on December 13, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on the ground that there was an error in the marking criteria for the mechanical design subject Nos. 3 and 2 of the third 1st and third 5th 1st 5th 2016 (hereinafter “instant issue”), and that the Plaintiff changed the Plaintiff to the final successful applicant of the third 1st 201, but was dismissed on July 11, 2017.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of the instant disposition by 2017Guhap5546 of the Seoul Administrative Court, but was rendered a judgment against the said court on January 25, 2018.

The Plaintiff appealed to this Court No. 2018Nu35683, but on June 5, 2018, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the lower judgment”) by this Court.

In other words, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2018Du48199, but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on April 25, 2019 after being sentenced to a final judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court.

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

A. The judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff did not examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that points out the problems of the purpose of setting the questions of this case and the process of drawing the answers, and only the testimony of the public official in charge of the examination delivery department, which is not the opinion of the members preparing the question or the grading committee, was heard, and it was erroneous in setting questions by reflecting the opinions of the famous professor or the academic conference