1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The purpose of the claim in a lawsuit shall be clearly specified so as to clearly identify its contents and scope, and as the determination of the purport of the claim is an ex officio examination, if the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order ex officio correction regardless of whether the defendant raises an objection, and dismiss the lawsuit, if the defendant does not comply with it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2904, Sept. 8, 1981; 2007Da53785, Nov. 12, 2009). Meanwhile, Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides the type of administrative litigation as an appeal litigation, a party suit, a civil suit, and an agency suit, and Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides the type of administrative litigation as a revocation suit, a confirmation suit such as invalidation, and a litigation for confirmation of illegality of omission.

The Plaintiff’s “claim for Change in Ownership DE False Building Preservation Registration” cannot be seen as having specified its content and scope, and it is not clear to the Plaintiff’s claimant against either party.

Accordingly, this court ordered to specify the purport and cause of the claim on April 24, 2018 and October 5, 2018, but the plaintiff did not comply with it.

In addition, the purport of the plaintiff's claim does not fall under any of the types of administrative litigation provided by the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding to dismiss it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.