1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the plaintiff and the selected party).

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review:

A. On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit (Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap60888) against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the instant adjudication against the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant adjudication”) on April 23, 2015, but on February 4, 2016, the first instance court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims, and the appellate court also rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiffs’ appeals on July 15, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) B.

Although the Plaintiffs appealed and appealed, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ final appeal on October 21, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Du51328). On October 26, 2016, the instant judgment subject to final judgment became final and conclusive as it is, by serving the Plaintiff with the foregoing judgment on October 26, 2016.

2. Existence of grounds for retrial

A. A lawsuit on a retrial on a final and conclusive judgment shall be permitted only when there exist grounds for retrial stipulated under the subparagraphs of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, if the grounds for a retrial do not constitute such grounds, the lawsuit on retrial is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da31307 delivered on October 25, 1996, etc.). B.

Various grounds asserted by the Plaintiff to the effect that there are grounds for retrial in the instant judgment subject to retrial do not constitute any grounds for retrial under Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

3. In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.