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

Although the offline generated in the vicinity of the site of this case flows into the sea through the pipelines buried in the site of this case connected to the Defendant's office of good, the site of this case has been circulated as well as the sewage pipes of buildings to be constructed in the vicinity of the site of this case are likely to be connected to the reclaimed pipelines in the site of this case.

Therefore, the defendant should take measures to prevent damage from being inflicted upon the plaintiff's entering the site of this case.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A. Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 1997). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not allowed to seek to the Defendant to seek that the Defendant does not bring the present site near the instant site into the site.

B. In addition, even if the plaintiff's lawsuit is made to the purport that the defendant's omission, which does not take measures to prevent the plaintiff's error near the site of this case from flowing into the site of this case, is illegal, the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission is filed only by the person who filed the application for disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission. Accordingly, the response by the administrative agency that the plaintiff seeks should be about the disposition under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the party's response to an administrative agency's response should be about the disposition under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, even if the party did not request an administrative agency to perform any administrative act, or even if it