국민인수위원회 청원회신처분 취소 심판청구에 대한 재결각
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. Nonparty B, the Plaintiff in the Seoul Central District Court 2016Na66027, filed an application for challenge against a judge on the ground that “B, without adopting a witness’s application, set the sentencing date by closing pleadings,” but the said application was dismissed.
(A) No. 9-1, 3). (b)
On August 2, 2017, Nonparty B received a petition regarding the above civil case from the National Acceptance Committee (No. 2-1), and the above petition was transferred to the National Court Administration on August 22, 2017, but the National Court Administration rendered a reply to the effect that “The content of the petition filed by Nonparty B is about a specific case’s trial, and if there is an objection to the contents or progress of the trial, it shall be dissatisfied with the procedure prescribed by law” (hereinafter “the reply of this case”).
(A) No. 2-2) c.
The Plaintiff, on August 22, 2017, filed an administrative appeal with the Defendant seeking the revocation of the “disposition of the Petition against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2017, on the petition for the confirmation of existence of the delivery of a promissory note, which was received by the National Acceptance Committee on June 3, 2017, with the Defendant as the “Director of the Court Administration Office” as the “Director of the Plaintiff.”
(2017 D. (No. 2017) (hereinafter referred to as “instant administrative appeal”) d. (Evidence 2-3, 4)
On October 11, 2017, the Minister of the National Court Administration appealed to the administrative appeal of this case, “the plaintiff is not the direct counter party of the petition reply, and there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the petition reply, and there is no standing to be a party,” and “the progress of the trial of a specific case and the result of the trial.” As to the petition requesting correction and disciplinary action against the relevant judge, the petition reply is merely an answer to the question, and thus, it is direct change to the specific rights and obligations of the petitioner.