1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of a massage club to the Defendant on January 2, 2014, in order to establish a massage club under the name of “C” in Seoul Northern-gu B.

B. On January 3, 2014, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of report on the establishment of the massage pool (hereinafter referred to as “certificate of this case”) stating that “I verify that I reported the establishment of the massage pool pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Medical Service Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 82(3) of the Medical Service Act and Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the Medical Service Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules on Marins.”

C. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for re-issuance of the phrase “I prove that the establishment of a medical institution was reported in accordance with Article 33 of the Medical Service Act and Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.” However, the Defendant rejected the application (hereinafter “instant refusal”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. In order for an administrative agency to refuse to conduct an action upon a citizen’s application for active action to constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the applicant’s application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action; the refusal should cause a change in the applicant’s legal relationship; and the citizen should have the right to request the action in accordance with the law or sound reasoning; and the meaning of “the cause of a change in the applicant’s legal relationship” means not only a direct change in the applicant’s substantive legal relationship, but also a change in the applicant’s substantive legal relationship.

Even if the applicant exercises his right as a substantive right holder, it is seriously hindered.