1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official on July 1, 198 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months due to a crime of intimidation during his/her duty in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Department. As the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was retired ipso facto pursuant to Article 61 and Article 31 subparag. 4 of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11531, Dec. 1, 2012).

B. C who is a public official of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office B applied for payment of retirement benefits, etc. on behalf of the Plaintiff upon delegation by the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Defendant’s objection prior to the merits cannot be deemed to have exercised public authority as a private act of C, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

B. Determination 1) Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that an administrative disposition subject to appeal is “the exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact by an administrative agency, or any other similar administrative action.” The term “administrative disposition” refers to an act under public law of an administrative agency, which directly changes the rights and obligations of the people, such as ordering the establishment of a right or the burden of an obligation with respect to a specific matter, or giving rise to other legal effects, and it does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1113, Sept. 8, 200). The Plaintiff’s “an administrative disposition” refers to an act under public law of an administrative agency, which directly changes the legal status of the other party or other related persons, such as a de facto notice, and is not an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1113, Apr. 18, 2012).