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. An administrative litigation seeking the performance of the duty to act by an administrative agency under the Administrative Litigation Act is not permissible under Articles 1 through 4 of the purport of the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15828, 15835, 15842 delivered on February 13, 2004). The Plaintiff sought certain acts against the Defendants under paragraphs (1) through (4) of the purport of the claim, and the Plaintiff is not allowed under the Administrative Litigation Act, as it constitutes a form of action for performance of obligation.

Therefore, the part of the claim Nos. 1 through 4 of the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

(n) The consolidation of related claims under Paragraph (5) of this Article and Articles 38 and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act requires that the original appeal litigation be lawful, and thus, 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 for 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 through 4 is unlawful, the lawsuit against the claim Nos. 5, which is joined in the lawsuit, is also unlawful.

2. In conclusion, since the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is all unlawful and cannot be corrected, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.