1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

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

purport, purport, ..

The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for removal of tin-to-face dials buried in the land leased by the Defendant from the Plaintiff as Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kadan11077, and for payment of KRW 189,000,000 if removal is impossible, and damages for delay.

On February 2, 2016, the court of first instance dismissed all the plaintiff's claims.

On November 9, 2016, the appellate court sentenced the instant judgment subject to a retrial, which dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2016Da52074, but on March 16, 2017, the appeal was dismissed.

The judgment subject to a retrial by the Plaintiff as to the legitimacy of the suit in the instant case was determined to the effect that the Defendant’s tin, buried, did not constitute a waste.

On April 14, 2017, the Ministry of Environment sent a reply to the purport that the Plaintiff’s inquiry constitutes a waste defined in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Wastes Control Act.

Since the judgment subject to a judgment was contrary to the Ministry of Environment’s inquiry and did not make any judgment on the interpretation of the Ministry of Environment as to whether it is illegal wastes, Article 451 subparag. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act constitutes “when an administrative disposition, which was the basis of the judgment, was changed by another administrative disposition” or “when the judgment was omitted on important matters that may affect the judgment” under subparagraph 9 of Article 451

Judgment

The questioning reply of the Ministry of Environment cited by the Plaintiff as the basis for the grounds for retrial does not themselves constitute an administrative disposition that directly changes the specific rights and obligations of the people.

No ground for retrial under Article 451 subparag. 8 of the Civil Procedure Act may be deemed to exist.

The judgment subject to a retrial is a judgment on whether or not tin, buried by the Defendant, constitutes an illegal waste, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the judgment was omitted as alleged by the Plaintiff.

§ 451.