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 are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

On July 9, 2013, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking illegal confirmation of the Defendant’s omission, which did not confirm the width of the instant road more than 6 meters by Daejeon District Court 2013Guhap2176.

On November 6, 2013, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s action on the ground that the Plaintiff’s action was in violation of res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered by the same court No. 2010Guhap1226 (the appellate court’s appeal case is the case No. 2010Nu1420).

B. The Plaintiff appealed to this Court No. 2013Nu3380, but this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed an appeal on February 20, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2014Du35805 regarding the judgment subject to a retrial, but on May 29, 2014, the final appeal was dismissed, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion and Chungcheongnam-Nam also confirmed that it was unlawful that the width of the road of this case was not expanded through several questioning replies by the Do governor, there exists a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial for which such illegality was not verified.

B. Article 451(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides that “when a judgment for retrial conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a final and conclusive judgment,” as one of the grounds for retrial, is to resolve conflict between res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the filing of a final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Da140, Mar. 9, 190; 90Da20510, Mar. 27, 1991). In order for the judgment for retrial to constitute the above grounds for retrial, a final and conclusive judgment confirming the illegality of the Defendant’