(영문) 서울행정법원 2011.6.2. 선고 2010구합43969 판결

A. On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the purport to correct the above long-term care rating on the Defendant’s website on the bulletin board of the National Health Insurance Corporation’s “Civil Petition Mar. 4, 2009,” where the Plaintiff had been subject to the 3rd grade of long-term care due to cerebrovassis while working at the National Tax Service. The Defendant sent a reply to the purport that the Defendant may file a formal objection with the National Health Insurance Corporation when dissatisfied with the 3rd grade of long-term care.”

B. On September 18, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the following contents on the bulletin board of the “Civil Petition Mar. 18, 2010 (hereinafter “instant civil petition”).

[C]

The Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out that the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs registered a person of distinguished service to the State on January 25, 2010 in the audit of the operations of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and reported the same to the media on January 25, 2010.However, the Board of Audit and Inspection was erroneous in the original decision, and the disposition of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs on the land was cancelled from the point of the cadastral date. In other words, whether the Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out any error in the original decision, whether the Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out any error after the cadastral date, or not any error that the Board of Audit and Inspection pointed out, or cannot be understood. It is desirable that the Board of Audit and Inspection takes proper measures, and does not bring any adverse precedent to the Government at the Board of Audit and Inspection. In addition, in this regard, it is possible to inform the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans of the reasons for delaying reply. It should be fair to rectify the administrative action against the Ministry, even if the Board of Audit and Inspection cancelled its cancellation from the cadastral decision date.

C. The Defendant regarded the instant civil petition as the same civil petition as that previously filed, and classified it as a repeated civil petition, and concluded the instant civil petition without reply on the bulletin board of the said “civil petition closing party.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

As to the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of illegality of omission, the Defendant asserts that the instant civil petition is a civil petition with the same content as the previous civil petition, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a legal obligation to make a certain disposition within a reasonable period of time, and that the instant lawsuit is unlawful since the Defendant responded to the instant civil petition after the instant lawsuit was filed.

B. Determination

(2) In light of the above legal principles, an administrative agency’s duty to respond to a citizen’s request is a legal enforcement pertaining to a disposition provided for in Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. Furthermore, an administrative agency’s response to a citizen’s request shall be deemed to be a legal enforcement pertaining to the same disposition. In addition, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is aimed at promptly responding to the administrative agency’s request and removing a passive state of omission or non-compliance with the same administrative agency’s response. Furthermore, even if the administrative agency’s response to a request is not rendered within a reasonable period of time, 1) and the administrative agency’s response to a request based on laws and regulations or cooking within 20 days prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit, 20 years prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit, 30 years prior to the conclusion of the judgment, and 97 days prior to the conclusion of the lawsuit, and thus, 97 days prior to the conclusion of the judgment’s response, 198 square meters of the appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.