1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by A;

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In a lawsuit to which the State is a party, the Minister of Justice represents the State, and the Minister of Justice may designate staff of the Ministry of Justice, public prosecutors of prosecutors' offices at all levels, or public-service advocates as prescribed by the Public-Service Advocates Act to perform the State litigation. If deemed necessary for the state litigation with respect to the affairs or supervision of an administrative agency, he may, after hearing the opinions of the head of the administrative agency concerned, appoint staff of the administrative agency and have them perform

(See Articles 2 and 3 of the Act on Litigation to Which the State is a Party. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that A, a legal representative of the Plaintiff, was designated or appointed by the Minister of Justice for the execution of the instant lawsuit. Rather, according to the records, A’s abuse of authority to institute the instant lawsuit, thereby treating A as the legal representative of the Plaintiff and filing the instant lawsuit by abusing authority. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it

Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the lawsuit of this case is an inappropriate lawsuit and it is not possible to correct the defects. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the lawsuit costs are borne by A who conducted the litigation pursuant to Articles 108 and 107 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.