1. The plaintiff, among the instant lawsuits, excluded the part of the claim for compensation for damage, among the claims that were mutually changed in the trial.

1. In relation to the claim for damages, the plaintiff asserts that since there was a special robbery by mobilization of violence by the heads of the I branches of the Gyeongnam Bank, etc., the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damage, since there is a crime of strong robbery by the plaintiff's factory owned by the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff'

2. Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, any lawsuit seeking a judgment of performance ordering an administrative agency to take a certain administrative disposition with respect to the remaining claims or any lawsuit seeking a judgment seeking a formation directly for an administrative agency to take the same effective administrative disposition with respect to a certain administrative disposition is not allowed;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 1997). The remainder of the Plaintiff’s claims are unlawful because they fall under a lawsuit seeking performance of obligations that is not permitted under the current law or their purport is not specified.

3. As such, the part of the instant lawsuit, excluding the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages, is unlawful, and all of them are dismissed. The Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages is dismissed as it is without merit (the Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit was withdrawn due to a change in the exchange of claims made at the trial and its judgment became null and void). It is so decided as per Disposition.