1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendant, primaryly, as stated in the above claim, and ancillaryly, confirmed that omission by the Defendant, which was reported by the Plaintiff at the time of filing a civil petition on December 4, 2014 by the Seoul Asan Hospital and its affiliated medical personnel, did not take a measure of violating Article 21(2)3 of the Medical Service Act regarding the refusal to issue a record of the duty of medical personnel.

On February 13, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim with the Seoul Asan Hospital reported by the Plaintiff on February 13, 2015 to confirm that omission, which did not take a measure of violation of Article 21 (2) 3 of the Medical Service Act, was illegal.

B. The court of first instance rejected the lawsuit in this case, and the plaintiff only seeks the acceptance of the part concerning the main claim in the purport of appeal. Thus, the above conjunctive claim is not subject to the judgment of this court.

2. On December 4, 2014 and February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on each civil petition or report filed against the Defendant on the refusal to issue a record of his/her duties to the Seoul Asan Hospital and its affiliated doctors; (b) the Defendant rejected an administrative disposition against the Defendant’s violation of Article 21(2)3 of the Medical Service Act; and (c) sought revocation of each refusal.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

(a) In order to satisfy the requirements for an administrative disposition against which a refusal by an administrative agency with respect to a citizen's request falls under an administrative disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation, the citizen shall have the right under laws, regulations, or cooking with respect to the administrative agency

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17568 delivered on December 7, 1999, etc.). B.

The Defendant’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s civil petition report seeking administrative disposition against the Seoul Asan Hospital and its affiliated doctors who committed a violation of the Medical Service Act, as seen earlier.