1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The so-called “performance of obligations” that orders an administrative agency to actively engage in a certain act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). The Plaintiff filed a civil petition against the Defendant to the effect that “the Plaintiff should have translated the Plaintiff’s international patent application into the Korean Intellectual Property Office,” and filed a claim identical to the description in the purport of the claim against the refusal to answer. However, the Plaintiff is not entitled to file a petition for performance of obligations as an administrative litigation.

Even if the plaintiff's above rejection disposition is sought for revocation of the plaintiff's rejection disposition, the issue of whether the government agency accepting the petition accepted the petition and to take specific measures is subject to the discretion of the state agency's free evaluation and notification of "civil petition correspondence" refusing the above petition.

Even if it does not affect the rights and obligations or legal relations of the petitioner, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition, and thus, it cannot be subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4195 delivered on August 9, 191). Accordingly, the defendant's response to the plaintiff's civil petition cannot be viewed as a rejection disposition and the revocation thereof cannot be sought.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and its defects cannot be corrected due to its nature. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the lawsuit of this case is dismissed without pleading pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.