logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.01.09 2014구합4731
부작위확인 청구
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion filed a complaint with the original police station B on December 2, 2010. However, the investigation and investigator of the original police station called to the plaintiff's mobile phone on December 2, 2010 to the police station of the original police station and called "it must be dismissed by the document proving the act of law." The plaintiff did not investigate the contents of the plaintiff's complaint.

Since then, the plaintiff did not receive a notification of the result of handling the above case, and did not return the written complaint.

This is illegal because it violates the Public Records Management Act.

As such, the defendant did not investigate the plaintiff's complaint despite his duty to investigate the complaint but did not abandon his duty.

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the purpose of the lawsuit is to remove the passive illegal state of omission or non-compliance with an administrative agency's response promptly by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with the legal obligation to respond to the request, such as affirmative action accepting, rejecting, or rejecting the request based on the legal or logical right of the party concerned, within a reasonable time.

A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of an omission shall be instituted only by a person who has filed a request for a disposition and has a legal interest to seek confirmation of illegality of the omission, and any response by an administrative agency that seeks such action shall be relevant to the disposition prescribed in Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, even if a party did not file an application with an administrative agency or filed a request, the party may require the administrative agency to perform such administrative act.

arrow