The reasons for the entry of this case are as follows. Thus, the court's ruling of the first instance is the same as that of the first instance court's ruling. Thus, it cites this in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On March 3, 2010, "the second 6th 6th 2010," the part used by the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency "The plaintiff visited the Seoul Western District Office on March 2, 2010 and provided a civil petition counseling and submitted a petition (However, the certificate No. 6 is stamped by the recipient on March 3, 2010)". The second 11th th th 10 "the response of the treatment result" is added to "the second 16th th 16th 16th 16th 16th 2nd 200."

0. From the last half to the third fifth half of the appeal shall be deleted, and the parts thereof shall be made with the following contents: [The issue of whether a government agency accepting a petition accepts a petition and takes a specific measure shall belong to the discretion of a government agency, and even if a government agency gives notice of the title "civil petition reply" refusing the above petition, it does not affect any rights and obligations or legal relations of the petitioner, and thus, it shall not be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4195, Aug. 9, 191).]

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.

Judges Kim Jae-ho

Judges Lee Jong-tae