2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The part of the claim for prohibition of interference with business (Paragraph 1) is an improper lawsuit that is not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act, for which an administrative agency’s claim for omission to prevent the administrative agency from taking a certain disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11988 Decided May 25, 2006). Even if the purport of this part of the claim is sought, it is unlawful as a lawsuit not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act, since it seeks not to interfere with the business of the Defendants.

B. The consolidation of a related claim lawsuit under Articles 38 and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original appeal litigation be lawful. Thus, in a case where an appeal litigation is dismissed in an unlawful manner, if the original appeal is dismissed in an illegal manner, the relevant combined claim shall also be dismissed to be deemed inappropriate to satisfy the requirements for the lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Du697 delivered on Nov. 27, 2001). Although the purport of this part of the claim purporting to compensate for damages arising from the Defendants’ act, it is a lawsuit related to omission as sought under paragraph (1) of the claim. As long as the part of claim 1 of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, this part of the lawsuit, which is a related claim, is unlawful, is also unlawful.

2. As the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is unlawful and cannot be corrected, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.