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.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part concerning the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s claim regarding the allegation of violation of the statutes related to the treatment of civil petitions in addition to the claim is not the same as the previous application, such as new installation of a place of invasion. Moreover, the instant application does not constitute an application that can be closed pursuant to Article 21 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26980, Feb. 12, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act”). Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Article 21 (1) and Article 21 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act (a) (1) Where a civil petitioner repeatedly submits documents (including copied documents) related to civil petitions (limited to civil petitions falling under any of subparagraphs 4 through 7 of Article 2 (2)) of the same contents at least three times without justifiable grounds, the head of the civil-petition office, etc. shall notify the civil petitioner of the result of the treatment at least twice, and the documents received thereafter may be closed with the approval of the head of the relevant administrative agency.

(2) "Civil petition affairs" in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Act means any of the following affairs:

1. Application for permission, authorization, patent, license, approval, designation, approval, recommendation, test, inspection, etc. is excluded from the scope of application for permission. Thus, the defendant cannot settle the application of this case by applying Article 21(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act to the plaintiff who falls under the application for permission.

However, the Enforcement Decree of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act.