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

A. On July 17, 201, the Plaintiff prepared and posted a civil petition in the civil petition column of the National New Reading Center, a website operated by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, to the effect that “a proposal for the operation of the website is a proposal for the operation of the website; (1) the content of the initial answer and the result of the theft evaluation if additional answers are made in national newspapers; and (2) the contents of the initial answer are indicated in both the content of the initial answer, the results of the initial theft evaluation, and the additional answers; and (2) the Defendant’s Internet homepage, which is the Defendant’s Internet homepage, are displayed, but has no content, so it is difficult to use the website or canal at a proper level, because it is difficult for it without properly

B. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant was classified as a repeated civil petition on the grounds that it is the same content as the civil petition already filed by the Plaintiff, and then sent a reply to the “closed treatment” on the bulletin board of the citizen newspaper.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the defendant must respond to the civil petition pursuant to Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, the defendant's response to the contents without any relation is unlawful and thus the confirmation is sought.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination

(a) Where the response constitutes a disposition under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, seeking confirmation of illegality is not an interest in confirmation, and it cannot be deemed as a type of lawsuit permissible under the Administrative Litigation Act, aside from the fact that the revocation or confirmation of invalidity can be sought;

B. However, since the plaintiff's above assertion may be deemed to be a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, it is examined as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission. The administrative agency's action for confirmation of illegality of omission refers to the administrative agency's failure to respond to the law that requires an affirmative action citing, rejecting, or rejecting an application based on the citizen's legal or sound rights within a considerable period of time despite the existence of a legal obligation to respond to such passive disposition, such as accepting the application within a considerable period of time. The administrative agency's obligation to respond to the application of this case is related to the disposition under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and it is a law enforcement with regard to the specific facts of the administrative agency, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9391, Nov. 8, 191). In addition, if the action for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is confirmed to be unlawful and thus the administrative agency's rejection of 207.

In light of the above legal principles, since the content of the civil petition is a law enforcement with regard to the specific facts of the defendant against the plaintiff, and it is not deemed that there was an application for any disposition that directly affects the plaintiff's rights and obligations. Thus, even if the defendant did not reply to the civil petition, it is difficult to deem that there was an omission subject to the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission. In addition, as long as the defendant replyed to the "closed treatment" on September 1, 201 on the ground that the content is a repeated civil petition on September 1, 201, it is reasonable to deem that the state of

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judge Lee Chang-chul