1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by A who is represented by the legal representative of the plaintiff.

agency.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not.

According to Article 2 of the Act on Litigation to Which the State is a Party, the Minister of Justice shall represent the State in a lawsuit to which the State is a party or intervenor (hereinafter referred to as “State lawsuit”), and Article 3(1) of the same Act provides that “The Minister of Justice may designate an employee of the Ministry of Justice, a public prosecutor of each level of public prosecutor’s office, or a public-service advocate as prescribed by the Public-Service Advocates Act and have him perform the State litigation” and Article 3(2) of the same Act provides that “The Minister of Justice may, if deemed necessary for the state litigation with respect to the duties or supervisory affairs of an administrative agency, designate an employee of the administrative agency after hearing

The fact that A, who is represented by the legal representative of the plaintiff, is not an employee of the Ministry of Justice, a public prosecutor, a public-service advocate, or an administrative agency which is the litigation performer, is significant in this court, and therefore A has no authority to file a lawsuit

Article 1(1) of the purport of the claim is a content that can not be claimed as a civil lawsuit, which does not instigates for insurrection by itself.

2. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected. Thus, it is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by A, who is represented by the legal representative of the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 108 and 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.