1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. With respect to a case in which the plaintiff filed a complaint against a public official belonging to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the plaintiff filed a petition with the defendant requesting the defendant to replace B prosecutor belonging to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter "Investigation Prosecutor"). Although the defendant notified the defendant that he would first handle the plaintiff's petition, the investigation prosecutor was not replaced, and the above investigation prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition regarding the plaintiff's complaint case.

Although the Plaintiff again filed a petition, on March 8, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “the same content has been continuously repeated, and there has already been a number of copies of the petition, so the public inspection is completed.” As such, the Defendant’s notification of the closure of the public inspection of the petition case without replacing the investigation inspection is illegal and unjust, and thus, the Defendant ought to perform the obligation to replace the prosecutor with the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking performance of an obligation to order an administrative agency to actively perform a certain act or to seek performance of an administrative disposition is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). In this case, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant for “replacement of an investigation inspection” against the Defendant. This constitutes a lawsuit seeking performance of obligation to order the Defendant, who is an administrative agency, to perform a certain act actively, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act.

B. To seek revocation of the rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s request for replacement of prosecutor

Even if an administrative agency's refusal to take action against a citizen's application for affirmative action constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.