부작위위법확인
The main claim in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.
3...
On February 1, 2017, the C head of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, as an agency under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, announced the "Survey on Technical Demand for D Business".
The plaintiff suggested the task of "E" (hereinafter referred to as "the task of this case") by subscribing to the public notice above.
On October 20, 2017, the C head of the agency informed the Plaintiff on the purport that “the technical demand proposed by the Plaintiff is reflected in the planning target task, and the task planning is under way,” and announced 18 ‘D Project Candidates' including RFPs on November 13, 2017.
On March 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant seeking to promote the instant task as an industrial core technology development project planning task with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy.
hereinafter referred to as the "request for a trial of this case"
(2) On July 9, 2019, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a legal obligation to promote the instant task as planning task; (b) thus, the Defendant rendered a ruling (case number B) rejecting the instant request for adjudication on the ground that the said request for adjudication was an unlawful claim filed against matters not subject to an administrative appeal; (c) the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the lawfulness of the primary claim among the lawsuits in the instant case is seeking confirmation that the omission is unlawful on the premise that there is a legal obligation to urge the Defendant to promote the planning of industrial core technology development projects and the implementation of the obligation to perform the tasks for industrial core technology development project. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a lawsuit seeking confirmation that an administrative agency fails to take a certain disposition within a reasonable period of time despite the legal obligation of an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against the party’s request, and where the administrative agency’s disposition on the party’s request is not permissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8753, Apr. 28, 1992).