The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

If an administrative agency’s refusal of an application for active action by a citizen of the determination of legality of the instant lawsuit constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, the agency’s refusal should be an exercise of public power or an equivalent administrative action; and the refusal should cause any change in the applicant’s legal relationship; and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with the relevant law or sound reasoning.

(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below’s determination on the admissibility of a petition is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of a petition, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the admissibility of a petition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Even if it does not affect the rights, duties, or legal relations of the petitioner, so it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition, and thus, it cannot be the subject of administrative litigation. Therefore, a lawsuit seeking revocation by deeming the above reply as a rejection disposition against the petition as unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4195 Decided August 9, 1991, etc.). The Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport to request the Defendant to investigate and answer the same content as the entries in [Attachment] attached Form, and the Defendant respondeded to the purport that he/she refuses to answer by failing to conduct an investigation requested by the Plaintiff on October 23, 2019, and avoiding the answer to the question.” As such, the Plaintiff deemed the refusal disposition to be the subject of the disposition and sought revocation thereof.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 2, the defendant's ground that the plaintiff asserted on November 5, 2019 does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under the Judicial Disciplinary Punishment Act, and if he/she has an objection to the progress and result of the trial, he/she is dissatisfied with the procedure prescribed by law, such as appeal, appeal, review, etc.

“.......”