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

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff had already been ruled against the same reason in the court, but again filed another lawsuit of this case with the same content, it shall be deemed as an abuse of the right and thus, it shall not be allowed.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Under the facts of recognition, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court No. 16, seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition, such as health insurance premiums, against the Plaintiff prior to the instant case.

Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, which provides that "The National Health Insurance Act that allows a person to subscribe to a national health insurance to pay insurance premiums and to urge the person to pay insurance premiums and take a disposition to collect delinquent insurance premiums in arrears, is in violation of the principle of a democratic state, and thus excessively limits the freedom and rights of the people, and is in violation of the full text of the Constitution, Articles 5 and 19 of the Constitution, and Articles 1, 11, 17, 23, 34 and 37 of the current Constitution, and thus, unconstitutional."

B) The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision of dismissal (2008Guhap2692, 2009Guhap1009, 13948, 11917, 2010Guhap36237, 2011Guhap7854, 201Guhap7854, 201Guhap30236, 2012Guhap6513, 2012Guhap3652, 2012Guhap3652, 2013, 2012Guhap3337575) on the ground that the disposition of imposition of insurance premium is legitimate on the ground that the disposition of imposition of insurance premium under the National Health Insurance Act and the National Health Insurance Act and subordinate statutes was not contrary to the Constitution.