beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful
A. The part of the lawsuit against Defendant 3 is merely merely based on the telephone number, and it is difficult to view that it was specified as the subject of rights with the party ability in a specific lawsuit.
this may be seen as an administrative agency where the telephone number in question is expressed.
Even if the lawsuit against it is also unlawful as follows.
B. The part of the claim for prohibition of interference with business (Article 1) is an illegal lawsuit that is not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act, for which an administrative agency’s claim for interference with business so as not to make a certain disposition.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du11988 Decided May 25, 2006). Even if the purport of this part of the claim is sought, it is unlawful as a lawsuit not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act, since it seeks not to interfere with the business of the Defendants.
C. The consolidation of related claims under Articles 38 and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which requires that the consolidation of lawsuits related to a claim under Article 38 and 10 of the said Act be lawful. Thus, in a case where the original appeal is dismissed for an illegal reason, the relevant joined claims shall be dismissed to be deemed inappropriate to satisfy the requirements for the lawsuit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Du697 delivered on Nov. 27, 2001). Although the purport of this part of the claim purporting to compensate for damages arising from the Defendants’ act, it is a lawsuit related to omission as sought under paragraph (1) of the claim. As long as the part of claim 1 of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, this part of the lawsuit, which is a related claim, is unlawful, is also unlawful.
2. As the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is unlawful and cannot be corrected, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.