1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Jeju District Prosecutors' Office for international abduction, etc., and the Prosecutor of Jeju District Prosecutors' Office dismissed the above crime of abduction.

B. On March 5, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant seeking confirmation as to whether the foregoing rejection disposition is a lawful disposition (hereinafter “instant application”), but filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendant’s omission was illegal on March 29, 2017.

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

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant made a decision to close the application of this case for public inspection and notified the plaintiff thereof, so there is no omission seeking confirmation by the plaintiff.

B. In a case where an administrative agency does not have a legal obligation to respond to a request based on a citizen’s legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time, such as affirmative action citing, rejecting, or dismissing an application based on the citizen’s legal or sound right, the purpose of the administrative agency’s prompt response by confirming illegality of the omission is to eliminate the passive illegal state that is called omission or non-compliance with the administrative agency’s response, and thus, if the state of omission is resolved by actively or partially disposing of the application, the benefit of the lawsuit would be lost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du13778, Sept. 4, 2014). The standard for determining illegality of omission in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission should be the time of closing the argument at the trial court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du12437 delivered on April 9, 199). In light of the above legal principles, each of the statements in the Health Center and in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6 regarding the instant case, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.