1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the instant lawsuit is to request the Defendant to disclose the instant written confirmation to the public by means of delivering it to the Plaintiff’s domicile, as stated in the purport of the claim, and to provide the Defendant with a comprehensive implementation plan for supervision of work at workplace conducted with respect to D hotels on November 29, 2018 and December 18, 2018.

2. As to the Defendant’s main defense, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful since the Administrative Litigation Act does not provide for the so-called “performance of obligations” lawsuit ordering an administrative agency to perform certain obligations.

3. The so-called “performance of obligation” lawsuit that orders the judgment administrative agency to actively engage in a certain act is not allowed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is a form of litigation not permitted under the Administrative Litigation Act, since it is apparent that it is a content of ordering the Defendant to perform a certain act in itself.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense pointing this out is justified.

4. The instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.