1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts are significant in this Court:

On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint to the instant court, but did not affix revenue stamps.

B. Accordingly, on March 8, 2018, the instant court issued an order of correction to the effect that “the payment of stamp, etc. within seven days from the date of delivery of the order” (hereinafter “instant order of correction”), and the Plaintiff received the instant order of correction on March 16, 2018.

C. On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for legal aid with respect to recognition, etc. (Seoul Administrative Court 2018ia527), but the decision of dismissal on May 14, 2018 was served on the Plaintiff on May 25, 2018.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an immediate appeal on May 31, 2018 (Seoul High Court 2018Ra1299), but the decision to dismiss the appeal on June 15, 2018 was served on the Plaintiff on June 29, 2018.

The Plaintiff appealed and re-appealed on July 6, 2018 (Supreme Court Decision 2018Da754). Accordingly, the decision to dismiss the non-exclusive trial as of September 4, 2018 was served on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2018, and the decision to dismiss the said decision became final and conclusive on May 14, 2018.

On the other hand, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served to Defendant Republic of Korea on February 26, 2019, and to Defendant Financial Supervisory Service on February 27, 2019, respectively.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. According to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 254 of the Civil Procedure Act, where a plaintiff fails to attach revenue stamps as stipulated in a complaint, the presiding judge shall set a reasonable period and order the plaintiff to correct the defects within the said period. Where the plaintiff fails to correct the defects within the said period after receiving an order for correction of revenue stamps, the presiding judge’s order shall dismiss the complaint. However, after the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint, it constitutes a case where it is impossible to correct the defects as an illegal lawsuit without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act. Meanwhile, the Act on the Stamps of Civil Litigation, Etc. is applicable.