부작위위법확인
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
1. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial of the first instance while filing an appeal do not differ significantly from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the first instance, and even if the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial of the first instance is examined together, the first deliberation decision dismissing the instant lawsuit is deemed legitimate.
Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of additional determination as to the plaintiff's assertion in the trial as to this case. As such, this Court cites it by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of
[Additional decision-making part] The plaintiff asserts that the civil petition filed by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the civil petition of this case") violates the Commercial Act, etc., not a request to impose an administrative fine, etc. or request for investigation, and that the act of the company of this case, etc. violates the Commercial Act, etc., and if it violates the above, it constitutes a civil petition for questioning "the defendant's explanation or interpretation as to whether it is possible to impose a penalty surcharge, etc. or request for investigation" [Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) (ii) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act]. The defendant does not reply despite the defendant's duty to respond to it. Thus, the defendant's omission is in violation of Article 11 (1) of the Constitution and Article 4 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act
A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission can be instituted only by a person who has filed a request for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission. Accordingly, a response by an administrative agency that seeks to do so must be related to a disposition stipulated in Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, even if a party did not file a request to perform any administrative act with an administrative agency, or even if that request was made, the party does not have any legal or logical right to require the administrative agency to perform such administrative act.