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 are apparent in records:

On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the discharge disposition against the Plaintiff on September 30, 1981 by the Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap13825, and was sentenced to dismissal on March 8, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2013Nu9849, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing an appeal on August 29, 2013 (the instant judgment subject to a retrial).

C. On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2013Du18957, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal.

Accordingly, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the litigation for retrial of this case

A. The judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff, based on G’s false testimony, rejected the Plaintiff’s claim. As such, there were grounds for a retrial under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 451(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a false statement by a witness, appraiser, or interpreter, or a false statement by a party or legal representative by a party examination becomes evidence of the judgment), as well as the grounds for a retrial under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act (when a judgment on important matters that could affect a judgment is omitted).

나. 판단 ⑴ 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제7호 재심사유의 존부 ㈎ 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제7호를 재심사유로 삼아 재심의 소를 제기하기 위해서는 위증 등에 관하여 유죄의 판결이나 과태료 부과의 재판이 확정되거나 증거부족 외의 이유로 유죄의 확정판결 등을 할 수 없을 것이 요구된다(민사소송법 제451조 제2항). ㈏ 그런데 이 사건에서 G이 위증 등으로 유죄의 확정판결 등을 받았다는 점에 관하여는 아무런 주장ㆍ증명도 없다.

Therefore, Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act is amended.