1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff filed a complaint against 28 public officials of Seongdong-gu (hereinafter “Defendants”) on suspicion of preparing false public documents, etc., the Plaintiff, who were subject to the disposition of non-prosecution against the Defendants, was dissatisfied therewith, and filed an appeal against the said non-prosecution disposition (hereinafter “instant appeal”) with the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2017 High Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 4113.

However, around April 28, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the decision of dismissal on the instant appeal (hereinafter “instant decision of dismissal”), and did not indicate only the reappeal by the method of appeal and provide guidance on the application for adjudication.

The defendant, even though it is an obvious public document, decided the dismissal ruling of this case, and intentionally displayed the reappeal notice on the decision of this case, which is not the object of reappeal, and caused the plaintiff to have the time limit for filing a petition for adjudication. The contents of the reappeal notice also stated differently from the fact that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office should make a final decision in the case of a reappeal dismissal.

Therefore, the plaintiff must dispute the dismissal decision of this case as an application for adjudication, and the period of application for adjudication has not been exceeded. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to file an application for adjudication against the defendant for adjudication on the dismissal decision of this case by the lawsuit of this case.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's purport of the plaintiff's claim is to seek confirmation that the plaintiff can file a legitimate application for adjudication against the dismissal decision of this case, and this is examined.

A lawsuit for confirmation is permissible in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine as the confirmation judgment in order to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the legal status of the plaintiff is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du35789, Feb. 15, 2017; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005).