1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts the gist of the lawsuit of this case as follows.

With respect to the facts surrounding B’s medical advisory consent and the doctor’s opinion that were in the process of paying the insurance proceeds, the Plaintiff received a petition (so called a complaint) stating that the Defendant will investigate it to the Defendant, and that the result thereof would result in an administrative disposition, such as requesting an investigation or imposing an administrative fine. However, the Defendant will seek a judgment identical to the purport of the claim, given that the Defendant did not make a request for investigation and did not notify the Plaintiff of the details of the investigation at all until one year after the filing date.

2. As to the Defendant’s main defense, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful since the Administrative Litigation Act does not provide for the so-called “performance of obligations” lawsuit ordering an administrative agency to perform certain obligations.

3. Determination

A. The so-called “performance of obligation” lawsuit that orders an administrative agency to actively engage in a certain act (disposition) is not allowed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is a form of litigation not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act, since it is apparent that it is a content of ordering the Defendant to perform a certain act in itself.

The defendant's main defense pointing this out is justified.

B. Nevertheless, if the form of the lawsuit of this case is modified, the case is examined as to whether the lawsuit is lawful, and even if all factual relations are acknowledged as alleged by the plaintiff, such request for an investigation cannot be deemed as a request for an administrative agency to make a disposition, etc. subject to administrative litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11278, Jun. 9, 192). The defendant has a duty to respond to specific legal provisions as to the plaintiff's appeal.

or the Plaintiff.