1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the third 9 to 20 copies of the judgment of the court of the first instance (the part concerning the grounds of the judgment of the first instance) is used as stated in the following Paragraph (2); and (b) it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition of the attached Acts and subordinate statutes related to the attached Form 2. Therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Part 3. Determination on the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' lawsuit

A. Under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which aims at the prompt response of an administrative agency by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if an administrative agency fails to respond to a legal response, such as the acceptance of an application based on a party’s legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time, despite the legal obligation to respond to such passive disposition, such as rejection, dismissal, or dismissal of the application. Such a lawsuit can be brought only by a person who has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, who has filed a request for disposition, and who has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission. Thus, if a party fails to have a legal or sound right to request an administrative agency to take any administrative disposition, or there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission cannot be deemed unlawful, or because there is no legal interest in seeking such confirmation of illegality of omission, it is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du14552).