beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that “The Plaintiff, who is a general citizen pursuant to Article 26(1) of the Constitution, has the right to claim a decoration against the Defendant, and the Supreme Court also recognized the right to claim a decoration from the general public in the Supreme Court Decision 2013Du20301 Decided July 24, 2014, the first instance judgment that deemed that the instant notification does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation is unreasonable.”
① As to the assertion, the right to petition under Article 26(1) of the Constitution is merely a right of citizens to state an opinion or desire to state a certain matter to the State agency, and thus, even if the State is obligated to examine the petition under Article 26(2) of the Petition Act and the competent government agency is obligated to notify the petitioner of the result of the examination and resolution, the receiving government agency is not obligated to faithfully, fairly, and promptly examine and process the petition and notify the petitioner of the result. Therefore, the issue of whether to accept the petition and take specific measures does not affect the rights and obligations of the receiving government agency as well as the rights and obligations of the petitioner and other legal relations, so the existence of notification of the result of the examination and resolution on the petition cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1458, May 25, 190), and the premise different from this premise.