1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a motion to the head of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office and the head of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office to re-examine the Defendants, etc.

However, under the current Administrative Litigation Act, the so-called “performance of obligation” lawsuit that orders an administrative agency to actively perform a certain act is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). Of the instant lawsuit, the above claim part is unlawful.

In addition, the plaintiff is filing a petition with the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office to appeal against the non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor against B and C and the plaintiff's appeal against it.

However, with respect to the disposition not to institute a prosecution by a public prosecutor, the appeal under the Public Prosecutor's Office Act, the reappeal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act, the application procedure for adjudication under the Criminal Procedure Act, and the constitutional complaint, and the propriety thereof can only be contested, and the public prosecutor cannot institute an administrative litigation against the disposition not to institute a prosecution or the decision to dismiss the appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu2271, Oct. 10, 1989; 89Nu3014, Jan. 23, 190). The above part of the lawsuit

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the consolidation of related claim lawsuits under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which determine the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for damages against the Defendants, requires that the original appeal litigation be lawful. Therefore, in a case where the original appeal litigation is dismissed on the grounds that it is unlawful, the relevant claims joined therein are unlawful, and thus, the rejection cannot be exempted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1990 delivered on November 11, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Du697 delivered on November 27, 2001, etc.). The Plaintiff claims to the effect that the Defendants seek compensation for damages caused by the illegal act.

However, as seen earlier, the original appeal, such as a request for re-investigation, is illegal.