1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. In the event that the Defendant’s major purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s pre-employed employees from specialized high-ranking masters have industrial work experience for a certain period of more than 3 years (3 to 5 years), omission that did not implement the system of training (the National Skill Standards) teachers through institutions such as colleges of education, teachers’ colleges, teachers’ colleges, etc. (the amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through the National Assembly) is unlawful

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the Defendant’s main defense is not standing to sue to the Plaintiff, or that there is an illegal omission that is the subject of an appeal litigation.

B. 1) A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is instituted only by a person who has filed an application for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission (Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act). In a case where a party fails to file an application to an administrative agency for an administrative act, or a party does not have any legal or logical right to demand that an administrative act be performed, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission shall be deemed unlawful on the ground that it cannot be deemed that there is no standing to sue or illegal omission subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du7853, Oct. 26, 2007; 96Nu1634, May 14, 1996). Meanwhile, the right to petition pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Constitution is merely a right to state agency’s opinion or desire to state agency, and thus, the State’s right to request the petitioner to promptly review the result of the petition’s review pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Constitution.