1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

the Gu office shall be located.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of an omission under Article 4 subparag. 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act of the purport of the claim is a system with the purpose of removing a passive state of omission or non-compliance by promptly responding to an administrative agency by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to do so despite the party’s legal response obligation to respond to an application based on the party’s legal or sound right, such as the affirmative action that accepts the application within a reasonable period of time, rejection, or dismissal of the application, etc.

The answer by the administrative agency that the plaintiff seeks through the response must be related to the disposition under Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu5786, May 25, 1990; 89Nu758, Sept. 25, 1990). Thus, even if the party did not apply for any administrative act against the administrative agency or applied for such an act, the party does not have any legal or logical right to demand that the administrative agency be engaged in such administrative act, or if the administrative agency rendered the disposition of refusal with respect to the party's application, it cannot be deemed that there is no qualification for the plaintiff or an illegal omission that is the object of the appeal litigation, and thus, the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of the omission shall be deemed unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11278 delivered on June 9, 1992). As to the instant case, the Plaintiff applied for the establishment of a health care unit and the old U.S. High Court against the Defendants.

The legal doctrine that allows the plaintiff to establish the old U.S. High Court.