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 became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this court.

On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for medical care benefits with the Defendant, alleging that the “satisfe of a protruding signboard escape and satisfe” between the 2-3th century constituted occupational accidents.

B. On August 9, 2012, the Defendant rendered a non-approval of the Plaintiff’s application for medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that there is no proximate causal link between the Plaintiff’s “satisfeing escape and satisfe” and the Plaintiff’s business.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant disposition with the Daegu District Court 2013Gudan159, asserting that the instant disposition is unlawful.

On August 23, 2013, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. While the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal, the appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 20, 2013.

In other words, the Plaintiff filed a final appeal against the Plaintiff, but the Supreme Court (2014Du1598) dismissed the Plaintiff’s final appeal on April 30, 2014, which became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive at that time.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for retrial asserts to the effect that there exists a ground for retrial falling under “when documents and other articles used as evidence for judgment have been forged or altered” under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, since the Plaintiff’s written diagnosis of the issuance of a doctor affiliated with C Hospital, which was evidence for the judgment subject to retrial,

B. Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to an administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, is guilty for reasons for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, for reasons other than the lack of evidence.