(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.1.13. 선고 2014구합15177 판결

Comprehensively taking account of the overall or partial descriptions of evidence A Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff received a civil petition to the Defendant, around February 13, 2014, that “The Board of Audit and Inspection shall be responsible for illegal cases of the Board of Audit and Inspection attached to his/her tables,” and that the Plaintiff received a civil petition containing the following (hereinafter “instant civil petition”) around March 4, 2014.

Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (including the Board of Audit and Inspection Act) of the Ministry of Audit and Inspection (including the Board of Audit and Inspection) is an administrative case on February 13, 2014, and another civil petition is submitted again. On December 29, 2013, the civil petition requesting the presentation of evidence was closed without reply on January 14, 2014, and the case is judged to have no different opinion on the case, and it is understood that he/she directly manufactures a leaflet and appeals to the people. Since the case attached to the black is an administrative case, since the case is an illegal (violation of Article 15 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act) of each Ministry (including the Board of Audit and Inspection Act), it is necessary to take a lawful administrative measure, and the person who has executed an illegal administrative disposition is responsible to the people, and it is necessary to strictly cope with the illegal (such as compromise) of the people after the Board of Audit and Inspection's illegal act from the date of inspection to the people."

The Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Defendant’s omission, which did not respond to the instant civil petition filed by himself by the instant lawsuit, was illegal.

However, an administrative agency's omission, which is the object of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission, refers to an administrative agency's failure to take a certain disposition within a considerable period of time despite the existence of a legal obligation to do so against a party's request. Since a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is filed by a person who filed an application for a disposition, the response of the administrative agency's response by the plaintiff must be about the disposition under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9391, Nov. 8, 191). Here, the disposition is a legal enforcement with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency, which directly affects the rights and obligations

In light of this, in light of the contents of the civil petition of this case, the civil petition of this case only requires the defendant to comply with the abstract obligation of fair law enforcement, which is an administrative agency's response, along with the defendant's expression of objection against the defendant, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant applied for a disposition as a law enforcement as to specific facts. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's response, which the plaintiff is seeking in the civil petition of this case, is about the disposition under Article 2 (1) 1

Therefore, in this case, the existence of omission, which is the subject of a lawsuit, is not recognized, and the defendant's defense of this point is justified.

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