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

A. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Ulsan District Public Prosecutor’s Office for fraud and the preparation of false public documents, and the prosecutor in charge filed a complaint against the above B and two others on October 27, 2014, which was dismissed on November 25, 2014. However, the Busan High Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 29, 2014.

B. On December 30, 2014, January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted evidentiary documents to the Busan High Prosecutor’s Office by mail, but the chief prosecutor of the Busan High Prosecutor’s Office returned each of the above evidentiary documents to the Plaintiff on the ground that the decision to dismiss the appeal had already been made.

(C) Each of the above documentary evidence (hereinafter referred to as “instant documentary evidence”).

On January 12, 2015, pursuant to Article 9 of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13459, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Civil Petitions Treatment Act”), the head of the administrative agency filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation on the ground that the return of evidentiary documents of this case by the chief prosecutor of the Busan High Prosecutor’s Office is illegal and unreasonable, in spite of the fact that the return of the evidentiary documents of this case to the chief prosecutor of the Busan High Prosecutor’s Office is illegal and unjust, in spite of the receipt of a civil petition, unless otherwise expressly

On June 16, 2015, the defendant rendered a ruling dismissing the above claim on the ground that the return of the documentary evidence in this case by the Busan High Prosecutor's Office cannot be deemed a disposition directly affecting the plaintiff's specific rights and obligations (hereinafter "the ruling in this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The prosecutor of the Busan High Prosecutor's Office unilaterally returned the documents of this case submitted by the plaintiff against Article 9 (1) of the former Civil Petition Treatment Act. The defendant is entitled to receive the plaintiff's substantive examination by dismissing the plaintiff's legitimate request for administrative appeal by the ruling of this case.