1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a claim against the Defendant, an administrative agency, to restore the Plaintiff’s illegally destroyed personnel records to restore them; and (b) filed a claim against the Plaintiff to reissue a written confirmation of the participation in the military, stating “B” in the rank column, based on the relevant personnel records sheet.

In regard to this, the defendant is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, and it is unlawful for the defendant to make a claim against the omission of the administrative agency.

Administrative Litigation Act provides the types of lawsuits that can be filed against the administrative agency.

(See Articles 3 subparag. 1 and 4 of the same Act). Therefore, a lawsuit other than the type of lawsuit as above is not allowed under the current law.

A form of lawsuit seeking the fulfillment of obligations is not defined as a type of lawsuit that can be filed against an administrative agency under the current Administrative Litigation Act.

However, the lawsuit of this case against the defendant, who is an administrative agency, seeking the restoration and keeping of a personnel record sheet and re-issuance of a certificate of fact of fact of transfer, constitutes a form of lawsuit seeking the fulfillment of its obligations on the premise that the plaintiff has an obligation to restore and keep a personnel record sheet and to reissue a certificate of fact of participation.

Therefore, such a lawsuit is not allowed under the current law because it falls under a lawsuit other than the types prescribed under the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 1997). Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is inappropriate as it falls under a lawsuit not permitted under the current law, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.