All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

ex officio deemed.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. Under Paragraph 1 of the purport of the claim, a claim seeking omission is an improper lawsuit that is not allowed by an administrative agency to prevent the administrative agency from taking a certain disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11988 Decided May 25, 2006). The Plaintiff sought from the Plaintiff not to perform any act against the Defendants under Paragraph (1) of the purport of the claim, which constitutes a lawsuit seeking an omission by an administrative agency, and thus, is not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act.

Therefore, the part regarding the claim(1) of the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Under the Administrative Litigation Act, an administrative litigation seeking the performance of the duty of action by an administrative agency under Paragraph 2 of the purport of the claim is not permissible.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15828, 15835, 15842 delivered on February 13, 2004). The Plaintiff sought removal of the Defendants from office under Paragraph (2) of the purport of the claim. The Plaintiff is not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act because it constitutes the form of a lawsuit seeking performance of obligations.

Therefore, Article 2(2) of the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

C. The consolidation of related claims under paragraph (3) of the purport of the claim and Articles 38 and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original appeal litigation be lawful, so in a case where the original appeal litigation is dismissed in an unlawful manner, the relevant claims joined therein shall also be dismissed to be deemed to be inappropriate to satisfy the requirements of the lawsuit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Du697, Nov. 27, 2001). The Plaintiff appears to seek State compensation or damages arising from the Defendants’ act, which constitutes civil procedure.

However, as long as a lawsuit against the Defendants’ claim Nos. 1 and 2 is unlawful, the lawsuit against the Defendants’ claim Nos. 3 is also unlawful.

2. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit against the Defendants constitutes both unlawful lawsuits and thus cannot be corrected. Thus, the Plaintiff’s argument is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.