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

A. The Defendant’s assertion in this case is unlawful as it constitutes an abuse of the right of lawsuit, since it repeatedly filed a final and conclusive judgment against the same content.

B. The following facts are significant in this court. (A) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of health insurance premiums, etc. against the Plaintiff before the instant case, 19 times with the Seoul Administrative Court. Of them, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition of imposition of insurance premiums since July 2002, or sought payment of the amount equivalent to the lawsuit or KRW 500,000,000 or KRW 1 million.

The purpose of Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, etc., which provides that “The National Health Insurance Act, which provides for the mandatory subscription to the National Health Insurance to pay insurance premiums, demands for the payment of insurance premiums, and dispositions on default, is to excessively restrict the freedom and rights of the people in violation of the principles of a democratic state, thereby violating the Constitution’s full text, Articles 5, 19, and Articles 1, 11, 17, 23, 34, and 37 of the Constitution’s full text, Articles 1, 11, 17, 23, 34, and 37 of the Constitution.

B) The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision to dismiss a lawsuit on the grounds that the first ten initial cases (2008Guhap26992, 2009Guhap1006, 2009Guhap13948, 2010Guhap11917, 2010Guhap36237, 2011Guhap7854, 2011Guhap30236, 2012Guhap6513, 2012Guhap3652, 2012Guhap3652, 203Guhap36552, 203Guhap37555, etc.) except for the first case (2008Guhap263, 2012Guhap852, 2013Guhap33755, etc.) were unlawful and thus the decision to dismiss the insurance premium imposed under the National Health Insurance Act became final and conclusive on the grounds that Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, etc.

The Seoul Administrative Court shall have eight (8) more.