1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion made a civil petition reply to the Defendant, stating that “The Plaintiff’s father B was recognized as an official North Korea payer, but it is not possible to grant a decoration to the present applicant as it is difficult for the Plaintiff to make an adequate review because the Plaintiff did not appear within the Republic of Korea” (hereinafter “instant civil petition reply”), which is unlawful against Articles 10 and 30 of the Constitution.

2. If a refusal by an administrative agency against a citizen’s application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation, the right to request an administrative agency’s action should be the citizen. If a citizen’s application without the basis of the right to request such an appeal is rejected by the administrative agency, the refusal does not affect the applicant’s right or legal interest, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11626 Decided April 15, 2005). Article 80 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that “The President shall award a decoration or other medal under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Thus, the President’s award of a decoration or other medal to a person subject to decoration pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and the Awards and Decorations Act is a state action with a highly political nature that serves as the head of the State, and whether the decoration is determined by the President himself/herself at his/her own discretion through a deliberation by the State Council (Article 7 of the Awards and Decorations Act): Provided, That Article 5 of the Awards and Decorations Act provides that the Defendant, etc. shall make a recommendation for decoration after undergoing a basic public examination prior to the grant of decoration, but there is no provision stipulating the subject, method, procedure, etc. of requesting the Defendant, etc. to recommend decoration.

Therefore, the plaintiff's father B is against the defendant.