2013Guhap2461 Cases which cannot be identified

A

Minister of Security and Public Administration

October 1, 2014

October 22, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The plaintiff is ruled that the plaintiff's 3th opposition to the amendment is not able to recognize a case where it is impossible to return to the court.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

In the course of the investigation of the case that the plaintiff applied for a harsh treatment from the personnel of the Central Information Department at the time for the reason that he did not perform the suppression duty and participated in the demonstration as a police officer for the settlement of truth, the investigator in charge did not investigate the plaintiff's work at all, and did not investigate the Kim Jong-gu Police Station and the police school's motive at all, and did not conduct the investigation at all, and did not investigate the evidence of the case, such as the plaintiff's student guidance, the senior professor and the senior professor of the previous North Korean University, and the witness did not conduct the investigation at all at the time. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not determine or falsely determine the evidence of the case. Accordingly, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the previous Private Mediation Committee for the settlement of truth (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap18963) against the plaintiff (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap18963). Thus, the defendant who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the previous committee for settlement of truth and reconciliation should make a new investigation into the truth.

2. Determination as to whether the prior filing of an action is lawful

As above, the Plaintiff is seeking a judgment ordering an administrative agency to perform certain obligations. However, under the current Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking performance of obligations or a lawsuit seeking confirmation of obligations against an administrative agency is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992; 92Nu1629, Nov. 10, 192). Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

Furthermore, according to the records of this case, on April 27, 2010, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the 3th Hun-Ga police officer A (Case Number D-46) seeking the revocation of the decision to ascertain the truth (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap18963) against the 3th Hun-Ga police officer for the truth and reconciliation, and received a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim from the above court on August 20, 2010. The appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Du30354) of the above appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Du30354) decided on August 19, 201 as of December 31, 2010, for which the committee's activity was terminated, and the Minister of Public Administration and Security rejected the lawsuit against the 3th Hun-Ba police officer's subsequent decision to the committee's amendment, and the appellate court again rejected the plaintiff's claim by deeming it as a lawsuit against the Minister of Public Administration and Security.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among judges.

Judges’ Trade Name

Judges Cho Jin-jin