명예회복무효등에대한확인의소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The reason for the judgment of this court which partially accepts the judgment of the first instance is "Article 2-2" among the judgment of the first instance.
B. The reasoning for the first instance judgment is the same as that for the first instance judgment, except that the part (from the bottom of the third to the bottom of the fourth to the bottom of the fourth) is used as set forth in paragraph 2 below. Accordingly, this shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judgment
A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality in a case where an administrative agency fails to take a certain measure within a reasonable period of time despite a legal response obligation to file an application based on statutes or cooking (Article 4 subparag. 3 and Article 2(1)2 of the Administrative Litigation Act). A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality may be brought only when a person who filed an application has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission (Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act). A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is not brought by a party to an administrative agency, or even if a party did not file an application for an administrative disposition against an administrative agency, or a party does not have a legal right or sound right to demand such administrative disposition against an administrative agency, or when an administrative agency rejected a party’s application, it cannot be deemed that there is an illegal omission subject to an administrative litigation due to absence of standing to sue
(2) According to the evidence No. 6, 7, and 13 as to whether the Plaintiff applied for restoration of his/her reputation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10602, Feb. 13, 2004). According to the evidence No. 6, 7, and 13 as to whether the Plaintiff applied for restoration of his/her reputation, the Plaintiff submitted an application for damages compensation to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City office on December 20, 2004, and the remaining head of Incheon Metropolitan City sent only one application document for the Plaintiff’s damages compensation to the Minister of National Defense on December 21, 2004, and only one copy of the application document No. 1 as the documents required for the application for damages