1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul District Court demoted Branch 93Gahap814, Jun. 17, 1994) that "the defendant's refusal to resign from the appointment of the plaintiff on April 11, 1992 confirmed that the disposition for the refusal to dismiss the appointment of the plaintiff is null and void, and the plaintiff paid the salary, consolation money, etc. from May 1, 1992 to the time of reinstatement." However, the above court dismissed the lawsuit for the nullification of the disposition for the refusal to dismiss the appointment of the plaintiff on June 17, 1994 and ordered the dismissal of the remaining claims.

B. While the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Daejeon High Court, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on July 4, 1995 (Seoul High Court Decision 94Na3535, hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on November 7, 1995.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Under the special law for the relief of a person who was excluded from the fixed term faculty appointment system, the Special Committee on the Appeal of Teachers revoked the Defendant’s rejection of reappointment against the Plaintiff on April 11, 1992, and the Defendant filed an administrative litigation (Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36100) seeking its revocation, but the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on May 2, 2007, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Therefore, there are grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to review.

B. Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment "when a judgment prior to the filing of a new trial is contrary to the final and conclusive judgment which rendered prior to the filing of a new trial" refers to cases where res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment subject to a new trial conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a new trial, and does not constitute cases where the final and conclusive judgment which rendered prior to the filing of a new trial conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2668, Jul. 28, 1981).