1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The company, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, working for the Plaintiff, (a) reported less wages to the Defendant for the Plaintiff.

As a result, due to the error in calculating the pension for the plaintiff, the plaintiff is paid the amount less than the legitimate pension amount to be paid.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to additionally collect the premium from the above company so that the plaintiff can receive the legitimate pension amount.

B. The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is that “the Defendant additionally collects insurance premiums from light-level machines, international Damon Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., e.g., Gamond Industry Co., Ltd., e., e.s., e.s., e.s., e.s., B

However, Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act provide for a lawsuit to confirm that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, but do not provide for a performance suit that requires an administrative agency to take a certain disposition against the omission of an administrative agency. Thus, a performance suit claiming a certain disposition against an illegal or unreasonable omission by an administrative agency is not recognized under the current Administrative Litigation Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13929 delivered on December 22, 1992). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking certain disposition against the Defendant is unlawful since it is not permitted to interpret the current Administrative Litigation Act.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the company, in collusion with the National Tax Service and the Defendant, reported less wages to the employees, including the Plaintiff, to pay less pension premiums to the Defendant, and filed the instant claim on the premise of this. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion.