1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff who is placed in the Gu office shall be the primary claim.

On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, and publicly announced the date, time, venue, and matters to be observed by the applicants for the bar examination on November 25, 2015, the Defendant violated the right to equality of the applicants for the bar examination residing in the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province by designating the Korea University, Research Institutes, the Korea National University, the Korea National University, the Korea National University, and the Chungcheong National University as a place for the examination, but failing to designate it as a place for the examination. The Defendant violated Articles 1 and 18(2) of the

Therefore, the omission by the Defendant, which does not include the Jeju University at the fifth bar examination site, is unlawful, and the Defendant should include the Jeju University at the seventh bar examination site.

However, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission may be instituted only by a person who has made a request for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission (Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act). In cases where a party fails to file a request with an administrative agency to perform any administrative act, or a party does not have any legal or logical right to demand that such administrative act be performed, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of the omission cannot be deemed to have a standing to sue or an illegal omission subject to an appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu17099, Apr. 23, 1993; 97Nu17568, Dec. 7, 1999). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to include the Jeju University at the fifth bar examination site. Thus, the part on the claim for confirmation of illegality in omission in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it has no standing to sue.

The plaintiff argues that Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act has been enumerated as an example of appeal litigation, so it is possible to confirm the illegality of omission of non-designated test place even without the plaintiff's application.