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

2. Regarding the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio, Article 4 of the current Administrative Litigation Act only provides for the litigation for revocation, invalidation, etc., and the litigation for confirmation of illegality of omission as a type of appeal litigation, and does not provide for the performance of obligations under the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, a performance lawsuit seeking to actively perform certain acts against an administrative agency under the Administrative Litigation Act is not acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). However, the instant lawsuit seeking against the Defendant to improve the remuneration and class of a graduate employee in the fourth year of a public agency to the effect that he/she would be equal to that of a graduate, constitutes a performance lawsuit requiring an administrative agency to take a certain disposition, and thus, is not allowed.

Meanwhile, even if the defendant does not enact the contents of the remuneration and assignment of position of a graduate employee of the public agency and wants to confirm that the omission, which was not reflected in the management evaluation of the public agency, is illegal, the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is not subject to a passive disposition such as affirmative action citing or rejecting or rejecting the application based on the party's legal or sound rights within a reasonable period of time, despite the administrative agency's legal response obligation to respond to the application.