1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

Since the determination of claim stated in paragraph (1) of this Article is a judicial action of the court, it does not constitute “the exercise of public authority or other similar administrative action as an enforcement of law with respect to specific facts by an administrative agency,” which is the subject of confirmation litigation, such as invalidation under Articles 2(1)1, 3 subparag. 1, and 4 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, is unlawful.

In addition, under the current Administrative Litigation Act, the so-called “performance suit” with the content that orders an administrative agency to actively perform a certain act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). The lawsuit under paragraph (2) of the purport of the claim constitutes a “performance suit seeking performance” with the premise that the Defendants are obligated to object in writing to the Plaintiff. Thus

Even if the purport of the claim under paragraph (2) of the same Article is that the consolidation of related claims under Articles 38(1) and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act is against the Defendants’ individual, the original appeal litigation is lawful. As seen earlier, the lawsuit under paragraph (1) of the same Article, which constitutes an original appeal litigation in relation to the lawsuit under paragraph (2) of the same Article, is unlawful. As such, the lawsuit under paragraph (2) of the same Article cannot be deemed as satisfying the requirements for the lawsuit, and thus, it cannot be deemed as unlawful.

Thus, since the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is not allowed by law and it is not possible to correct the defects, it is so decided as per Disposition with the decision of dismissal without pleading in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.