1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, where a party does not have any legal or logical right to require an administrative agency to perform any administrative act, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission cannot be deemed to have standing to sue, or illegal omission, which is the object of an appeal litigation, and thus, is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17568 delivered on December 7, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 99Du11455 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.

The Plaintiff appears to have asserted that “the Defendant’s omission against the Defendant was unlawful” by asserting that “the Plaintiff’s civil petition was terminated in the name of a non-public official.”

However, the Plaintiff does not specify “the Defendant shall perform any administrative act specifically,” and does not seem to have the right under the law or sound reasoning to demand specific measures regarding the terminated civil petition.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no standing to sue, or there is no illegal omission subject to appeal litigation.

2. In conclusion, since the lawsuit of this case is an inappropriate lawsuit and thus its defects cannot be corrected, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.