The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

The cost of retrial shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

1. The Plaintiff’s argument that the judgment subject to a retrial was unlawful by the Intervenor’s disciplinary dismissal on April 1, 2010, based on the Intervenor’s program for the withdrawal of illegal human resources. The Intervenor’s rejection of the Plaintiff as defamation constitutes an illegal withdrawal from office due to the Intervenor’s defamation, and not only constitutes unfair labor practices but also constitutes abuse of the right to impose disciplinary discretion, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial as prescribed by Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. No lawsuit for retrial shall be filed after five years have elapsed since a judgment on whether or not the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial became final and conclusive.

(2) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Plaintiff appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18516, Nov. 29, 2012. However, the final appeal was dismissed on November 29, 2012, and the judgment was served on the Plaintiff on December 4, 2012, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive, and the lawsuit in the instant case was filed on May 13, 2020 at the time of the final judgment

Therefore, the litigation of this case is unlawful because the period for filing a lawsuit expires.

3. As such, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.