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 a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the revocation of the “waste return disposition following a waste disposal report” with the Plaintiff on February 17, 2011 by the Daegu District Court Decision 201Guhap4215, and on December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff amended the purport of the claim by the Defendant to seek revocation of the “waste disposal facility or recycling facility installation report” with the Plaintiff on December 20, 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. On April 18, 2012, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial with the purport that the Plaintiff appealed against the foregoing judgment and appealed as Daegu High Court 2012Nu967, but the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 7, 2012.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2012Du21826, but on December 27, 2012, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the final judgment of dismissal of the Supreme Court.

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

A. Despite the existence of preserved mountainous districts and quasi-preserved mountainous districts located in Yongcheon-si, Youngcheon-si, a project site of the Plaintiff, the Defendant prepared official documents (Evidence A No. 5-4 and No. 8) stating the false content that “The entire project site of the Plaintiff is a preserved mountainous district (a mountainous district for forestry use) located in 86, Youngcheon-si, a mountainous district located in Gacheon-si, the project site of which was claimed by the Plaintiff, as if the entire project site of the Plaintiff were preserved mountainous districts.”

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit disputing the instant disposition, and the Defendant submitted the said official document to the full bench as if it were the document indicating the facts.

The judgment subject to a retrial was rendered based on the aforementioned false official document, and thus, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.