beta
Text
1. All of the lawsuits of this case that are changed in exchange at the trial of the political party shall be dismissed;
2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
A. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act is a system with the purpose of removing a passive state of omission or non-compliance by promptly responding to an administrative agency by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with a legal obligation to respond to a request based on a party’s legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time despite the existence of a legal obligation to respond to such passive disposition, such as accepting, rejecting, or rejecting, an application based on the party’s legal or sound right. Such a lawsuit is filed only by a person who has filed a request for a disposition and has a legal interest in seeking confirmation that the omission is illegal. Thus, in cases where the party does not have a legal or sound right to request an administrative agency to issue a certain administrative disposition, or where there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission cannot be deemed unlawful omission, or where there is no legal interest in seeking such confirmation
B. (Supreme Court Decision 99Du11455 delivered on February 25, 2000).
On the other hand, this case returned to the case and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs filed an application for the same contents as the purport of the claim against the defendants. In addition, even if the plaintiffs filed a claim against the defendants, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have any legal or logical right to make such a request or any legal interest to seek confirmation of illegality of omission. Thus, the lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed to have an illegal omission which is the object of the appeal litigation, or there is no standing to sue.
2. The conclusion is that the instant lawsuit that was changed in exchange at the trial is both unlawful and thus, it is unlawful.