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

A. On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the following contents (hereinafter referred to as “instant civil petition”) under the title “B on the front page of a national newspaper on the website operated by the Defendant.”

Although the President emphasizes "the importance of the lives of the people" in relation to the case of Suwon Women, the President of the Republic of Korea took a responsibility for and resigns from the police officer's wrong responsibility, he will act as acting in action against the life of the people by the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection.In spite of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Republic of Korea, the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Republic of Korea demanded the defendant to respond to the document and to respond again in accordance with the purport of the claim. However, the lawsuit is liable for damages to the life of the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Republic of Korea.The Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the United States of Audit and Inspection of the Republic of Korea.The Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Board of Audit and Inspection of the United States of Audit and Inspection of the United States of America may know the arguments specifically, and there is no other unfavorable circumstances for the election campaign.

B. On May 9, 2012, the Defendant concluded the instant civil petition without reply, deeming that there is no specific statement of fact regarding the rights and obligations, and that it falls under the same and overlapping civil petitions as the previous civil petitions filed by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As the Defendant did not perform its duty despite the obligation to reply in writing to the result of the civil petition treatment in accordance with Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”), it is necessary to seek confirmation of illegality in this regard.

2) In handling the instant civil petition, the Defendant entered the scheduled date of treatment on June 14, 2012, and without any legal basis, violated Article 20 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, since the term of treatment of civil petitions was arbitrarily determined based on the Board of Audit and Inspection Regulations, etc.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff sought a judgment as to whether the Defendant violated Articles 15 and 20 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act with respect to the instant civil petition. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion is examined according to the Plaintiff’s assertion. According to Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation is divided into an appeal litigation, a party litigation, a civil suit, an agency litigation, and an appeal litigation is divided into a confirmation litigation, an invalidation litigation, and an omission litigation. In light of the above provisions, it is reasonable to deem that the Administrative Litigation Act lists the types of administrative litigation. If the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation does not fall under any kind of litigation stipulated in the Administrative Litigation Act, it is unlawful in the instant lawsuit. However, a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendant’s failure to reply to the instant civil petition violates Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act is limited to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality among the types of administrative litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act, and it is evident that the Defendant’s legal status or risk of the instant lawsuit does not constitute an appropriate means or risk of the Plaintiff’s legal status.

Therefore, this lawsuit cannot be filed as an administrative litigation, and it is unlawful.

2) Even if the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is interpreted as it is and sought confirmation of illegality of omission, the administrative agency’s omission subject to action for confirmation of illegality of omission refers to non-performance of legal response despite the existence of legal response obligation. Here, the administrative agency’s obligation to respond to the citizen’s request refers to a disposition under Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which is related to the administrative agency’s specific facts, and must be a legal enforcement that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9391, Nov. 8, 191). The civil petition of this case is a law enforcement with regard to specific facts, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant applied for any disposition that directly affects the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations. Thus, even if the civil petition of this case did not reply to the civil petition of this case, it is difficult to view that there was omission subject to action for confirmation of illegality of omission. Therefore

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-hwan

Justices Kim Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.