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

office shall be located in the Gu.

1. Of the instant lawsuits, a claim seeking omission is an unlawful lawsuit that is not allowed by an administrative agency pursuant to the Administrative Litigation Act to prevent an administrative agency from taking a certain measure under the Administrative Litigation Act.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11988, May 25, 2006). The Plaintiff sought, on the premise that the Defendants are administrative agencies, that they do not perform certain acts against the Defendants. This constitutes a lawsuit seeking an omission by an administrative agency, and thus, is not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful without requiring further review.

2. The consolidation of related claims under Articles 38 and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act, among the lawsuits of this case, requires that the original appeal litigation be lawful, and thus, in a case where an appeal litigation is dismissed on the grounds that the original appeal is unlawful, the relevant joined claims shall also be dismissed to be deemed inappropriate.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Du697, Nov. 27, 2001). Although the cause of the claim is unclear, this part of the lawsuit by the Plaintiff is a claim for damages related to the omission to be sought under paragraph (1) of the purport of the claim, which constitutes a combination of the lawsuits under paragraph (1). As long as the lawsuit under paragraph (1) is unlawful, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

3. In conclusion, since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendants is all unlawful and thus its defects cannot be corrected, it is decided to dismiss all of the lawsuits without pleading pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.