The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to review.

A. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff, who worked for Company B, filed an application with the Defendant for medical care benefits that the Defendant was suffering from the injury and injury of the pertinent “Plag escape certificate No. 3-4-5,000,” and the Defendant decided to pay medical care benefits to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2013.

B. On May 27, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the decision to pay medical care benefits (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2015, following the investigation by the insurance investigation department to which the Defendant belongs.

C. Accordingly, on August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Seoul Administrative Court (2015Gudan11434) by abusing discretion against the principle of trust protection and the principle of proportionality (2015Gudan 11434). The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 27, 2016.

Although the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment and filed an appeal to this court (2016Nu56716), this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 24, 2016 (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the Plaintiff re-appealed to the Supreme Court (2016du6318), but the judgment subject to review was dismissed on March 9, 2017, and became final and conclusive as it is.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that “Nos. 5 (W.C’s answer to the judgment on review) which served as evidence of the judgment on review is a document prepared in a false manner, and there is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment on review.”

Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under the Administrative Litigation Act, may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or a final and conclusive judgment of a judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, in the case of grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6