1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was commissioned as a resident self-employed member (auditor) of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu.

B. On October 17, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that the Plaintiff’s term of office expires on September 28, 2014 pursuant to Article 17(7) of the Gangnam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Residents’ Self-Governing Center (Amended by Ordinance No. 1244, May 15, 2015; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”).

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency in the primary claim can be the subject of an appeal litigation cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In a specific case, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with respect to a specific fact by an administrative agency as the subject of public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The decision should be made individually in light of the content and purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form and procedure of the act, the substantial relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7834, Apr. 24, 2014). Article 17(7) of the instant Ordinance provides that the term of office of a member shall be two years, but may be renewed consecutively. The instant notification is merely limited to the Plaintiff’s notification that the term of office of a member of the residents’ autonomous council has expired, and it does not constitute a direct change in the Plaintiff’s substantive legal relationship. Thus, the instant notification cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation.

The plaintiff is a resident autonomy member, such as attending meetings even after the expiration of the term.