1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. From May 22, 2003 to June 30, 2003, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the Plaintiff’s domicile based on Article 17-2 of the former Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8422, May 11, 2007).

The defendant issued a peremptory notice to the plaintiff on June 11, 2003, which determined that the plaintiff did not reside in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter "the domicile of this case"), which is the resident registration address of the plaintiff, and issued a peremptory notice to the plaintiff to report the resident registration matters. On June 19, 2003, the defendant announced the same contents and revoked the plaintiff's resident registration on the ground of unauthorized Transfer on June 26, 2003.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b)

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant disposition (In Incheon District Court 2015Guhap831), but on November 5, 2015, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff re-registered the resident registration at the domicile of the instant case on August 12, 2003, which was after the instant disposition, and did not have any interest in confirmation.

Accordingly, on April 29, 2016, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Nu67962) appealed the Plaintiff, and the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Nu67962) rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds that there is a benefit of confirmation, and that there is no fact that the Defendant violated the procedures in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is necessary to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal based on the principle that the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

The original text of the judgment subject to a retrial was served on May 9, 2016 on the Plaintiff, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 24, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an appeal within the period of appeal.