1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The Plaintiff’s judgment subject to a retrial was rendered based on the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act, as the Plaintiff urged an investigation on December 16, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s request for the explanation of seat and the request for examination of witness (two cases) were justifiable.

2. According to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso of Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a party asserts, or does not know, the grounds for retrial by an appeal, a lawsuit for retrial shall not be instituted. Here, “when the party does not know,” “when he knows, or does not appeal, that there was any grounds for retrial,” refers to the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive, including the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive because

If there were grounds for omitting the Plaintiff’s assertion in the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff became aware of this on December 28, 2015, on which the original copy of the said judgment was served. However, without filing an appeal against the said judgment, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for retrial of this case and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

In such a case, the plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds of omitting judgment, and thus, the lawsuit for retrial in this case is unlawful

(3) If the lawsuit for retrial is unlawful, the legal requirements of the lawsuit for retrial as above are to be dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.