This Court rejects the instant lawsuit that has been changed interchangeally in this Court.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Articles 3 and 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act only stipulate a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the omission by an administrative agency is illegal, and they do not stipulate a certain disposition against the omission by an administrative agency, and thus, a lawsuit claiming an administrative agency to make a certain disposition against an illegal or unreasonable omission is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13929, Dec. 22, 1992). The lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff whose exchange was changed in this court, is an action for the performance of a duty requested by an administrative agency to make a certain disposition, as stated in the purport of the claim, is unlawful.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, without any further determination as to the merits.