The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

The right to petition under Article 26(1) of the Constitution is merely a right that citizens have a right to state their opinion or desire on a certain matter to the State agency and to urge the preference of the State agency to such a matter. Thus, even if the State has a duty to examine the petition under Article 9(2) of the Petition Act and the competent government agency has a duty to notify the petitioner of the result of the examination under Article 9(4) of the Petition Act, the receiving government agency is not obliged to faithfully, fairly, and promptly examine and process the petition and notify the petitioner of the result. Therefore, the issue of whether to accept the petition and take a specific measure is not only a matter within the discretion of the State agency, but also it does not affect the rights, obligations, and other legal relations of the petitioner, and thus the existence of the notification of the result of the examination and disposition of the petition cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation.

2. In this case, the plaintiff filed a petition under the premise that the defendant's notification of the result of review on the plaintiff's petition for the abolition of the above order (the Presidential Decree No. 4949 of Apr. 20, 1970) is merely a formal review review report, and that the defendant has a legal obligation to realize the contents of the petition, but the state agency accepting the petition as stated above has no legal obligation to confirm illegality of omission, but is not obligated to do so. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case cannot be dismissed because it cannot be seen as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation because the notification of the result of the above review process cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation. The judgment of the court below is unlawful, since the defendant fulfilled its legal obligation by examining and processing the plaintiff's petition for the abolition and notified the result thereof to the defendant, and since there is no obligation to perform the abolition of the above order, which is the plaintiff's contents of the petition, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed on the ground that there is no unlawful omission as a subject of the lawsuit of this case.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal on the premise that the lawsuit in this case is lawful, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)