1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party and Review Plaintiff).

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

A. The Plaintiff’s order of correction on November 7, 2016, issued on November 24, 2016 by the court ordering correction of the insufficient amount among the stamp units to be attached to the instant petition for reexamination, is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff failed to correct the stamp until now, even though it was served on November 24, 2016.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.

B. Supplementaryly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for quasi-deliberation regarding the litigation direction of the adjudication division, including the on-site inspection application in the litigation procedure of the case subject to re-adjudication (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na30188), the examination of evidence on the application for witness, etc. (including the implied decision of the adjudication division asserted by the Plaintiff) may not be subject to independent objection, but the trial on the direction of the lawsuit can be contested through the final appeal on the merits without independent objection. Thus, the decision on the direction of the lawsuit cannot be considered as the subject of quasi-adjudication, regardless of the decision on the nature of the final judgment, or the order or the final decision.

In the end, the plaintiff's quasi-examination of the evidence collection decision which is not the object of quasi-examination is also unlawful.

2. As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the rejection without pleading pursuant to Articles 455 and 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.