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

The above act of damaging a complaint is illegal because it violates the Public Records Management Act.

2. On the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit ex officio, the determination shall be made as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

According to Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation is classified into an appeal litigation, a party litigation, a civil suit, and an agency litigation. An appeal litigation is classified into an administrative agency’s litigation seeking revocation of an illegal disposition, etc.; an administrative agency’s litigation seeking confirmation of validity of a disposition, etc.; and an administrative agency’s litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc.; and three types of litigation seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, seeking confirmation of illegality of an administrative agency’s omission. In light of the above provisions, it is reasonable to deem that the Administrative Litigation Act provides the types of administrative litigation as listed. If an action sought by the Plaintiff does not fall under any kind of litigation as provided

However, since a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the damage of a complaint filed by the defendant violates the Public Records Management Act is not subject to an administrative disposition or omission by an administrative agency, it does not constitute an appeal litigation, and it is obvious that it does not fall under any other type of lawsuit (party litigation, civil lawsuit, and agency litigation) as prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, since such a lawsuit cannot be filed as an administrative litigation, it is unlawful.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.