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

A. On April 15, 2019, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment of two years and six months with prison labor for fraud, etc. in the Busan District Court Western Branch, and was transferred to the Daegu Detention House on the ground of the enforcement of the said sentence in the first prison of the North North Korean Dos.

B. On March 5, 2019, the Disciplinary Committee on the First Correctional Institution in North Korea prepared a false complaint to the effect that the Plaintiff conspired with other prisoners and submitted it to the Plaintiff that “A teacher who is a staff member of the First Correctional Institution in North Korea, who is a staff member of the North Korean Correctional Institution B, her employee in charge of the said correctional institution, expressed a false complaint, and accordingly, the disciplinary measure of the disciplinary measure under Article 107 subparag. 5 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) (Article 107 subparag. 5 of the same Act, Article 215 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 109(2)2 of the same Act, and Article 109(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act was imposed on the Plaintiff at a 30-day period of time (including the period of the investigation) of the said disciplinary committee.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

On April 15, 2019, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Daegu Regional Correctional Agency Administrative Appeals Commission, but the said administrative appeal was dismissed on July 22, 2019.

On the other hand, on March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff completed the execution of disciplinary action according to the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. As the instant disposition had already been completed, there is no legal interest in seeking revocation of the said disposition against the Plaintiff, as the gist of the defense prior to the merits of the instant case had already been executed.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. However, in order to recognize the benefit of litigation in an appeal litigation 1, there must be “legal interest” as stipulated in Articles 12 and 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act.