B. The legal requirements for an action to verify illegality of the omission

(c) The case holding that it is not possible to seek confirmation of illegality on the ground that the fact that part of the career experience in the determination of the salary grade was not included in the determination of the salary grade was illegal and that the action for confirmation of illegality of omission was taken "the disposition of rejection of the above application"

B. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission can only be brought by a person who has filed a request for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission. Accordingly, the response of an administrative agency seeking such a request must be about a disposition as stipulated under Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, in a case where a party did not file a request with an administrative agency for an administrative act, or where the party did not have any legal or logical right to demand the administrative agency to conduct such administrative act, or where the administrative agency rendered a rejection disposition with respect to a party’s request, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission cannot be deemed to be unlawful, since it cannot be deemed that there is no qualification of the plaintiff or there is an illegal omission

C. The case holding that since the plaintiff specially appointed as a local public official in technical service did not recognize part of his work experience as a similar work experience and did not include it in the determination of the salary class because it was unlawful, the defendant's response to a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of illegality of omission is an "disposition for the determination of salary class" as a result of adding or not adding similar work experience, and it is not an "disposition for the determination of salary class" nor an "disposition for the determination of salary class" itself, it is not an "disposition for the determination of salary class" but an "disposition for the determination of salary class" itself. Therefore, the defendant cannot seek the confirmation of illegality by considering the "an omission that does not add similar work experience as a reason for the above disposition" itself as an "an omission that is subject to appeal litigation."

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system for the purpose of removing a passive illegal state which is an omission or non-compliance with an administrative agency's response promptly by confirming that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with a legal response obligation to respond promptly, such as accepting, rejecting, or rejecting an application based on a party's legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu5786, May 25, 1990; 89Nu758, Sept. 25, 1990; 89Nu758, Sept. 25, 1990). Thus, an administrative agency's response to an administrative agency's response to an application based on a party's legal or sound right should be related to a disposition under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which has no legal or legitimate right to an administrative agency's response (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu919, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the defendant's special appointment of the plaintiff as a local public official for a local public official on July 31, 1990 and the defendant's work experience from July 14, 1978 to July 14, 1989 among the work experience of the plaintiff's cleaning driver's work experience as a similar work experience is illegal and it is not included in the re-determination of the salary grade, it does not constitute the plaintiff's work experience as to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission by the plaintiff's work experience during the above period, which is recognized as a similar work experience in the determination of the salary grade under the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations and the Miscellaneous Personnel Regulations, it is legitimate that the defendant's work experience is not included in the re-determination of the salary grade, and in this case without any ground to deem that the above provisions are illegal, the plaintiff's work experience as an administrative agency can not be deemed as having the right to require the plaintiff to include the above work experience directly in the determination of the salary grade.

However, the defendant's response to the plaintiff's response to the plaintiff's request for a change in the combined work experience is not a "disposition for the re-determination of salary grade", which is the result of adding or not adding similar work experience, but a "disposition for the re-determination of salary grade". Therefore, in this case, since the defendant's refusal disposition against the above application was a "disposition for the re-determination of salary grade", it is not possible to seek confirmation of illegality by considering that the plaintiff's response to the plaintiff's response to the plaintiff's request for a change in the combined work experience as an "action that is the subject of an appeal litigation", which is the reason or reason for the above disposition, and it is not a "an omission" that does not add the similar work experience to the defendant's work experience in relation to the re-determination of salary grade in this case. Moreover, no evidence exists to deem that the plaintiff applied for a change in

As a result, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality regarding an action for confirmation of illegality of omission, which is filed by a person who is not qualified as the Plaintiff, or which cannot be deemed as an omission which is the subject of an appeal litigation, shall be deemed unlawful, as it is a claim for confirmation of illegality. The lower court’s conclusion that the instant lawsuit was dismissed on the ground that it was inappropriate at the time of the explanation of its reasoning, is justifiable as a result of the conclusion that the instant lawsuit was dismissed on the ground of its illegality, and that there was an

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)