1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2015, the Defendant received an application from the Korea Ginseng Federation for the registration of geographical indications on “Korea Black Ginseng Products” and decided to publicly notify an application for registration of geographical indications pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act.

B. On February 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendant’s omission was illegal on June 14, 2016, although the Plaintiff filed an objection against the said public announcement decision pursuant to Article 32(6) of the Agricultural and Fishery Products Quality Control Act.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 2, 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 decided to dismiss the plaintiff's objection as a result of the deliberation by the subcommittee on registration of geographical indications, and notified the plaintiff, 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, this case was examined.