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

A. On September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Seoul High Court 2013No110 on September 11, 2013 to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, deadly weapons, etc.), confinement, and property damage. As a result, an appeal against the said judgment (Supreme Court 2013Do11438) was dismissed and confirmed, the Plaintiff is currently serving in execution of the said sentence in the Chuncheon Prison.

B. After going through a resolution of the Disciplinary Committee, the Defendant issued the following disciplinary measures against the Plaintiff:

1) On April 3, 2014, a disciplinary measure of two months grace period (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”) is deemed to be a disciplinary measure of two-month grace period (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”) on the ground that “the instant disciplinary measure was likely to interfere with B’s normal work and progress by conflict with B during his/her classical performance” (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”).

(2) On November 6, 2014, a disciplinary measure of 21 days worth (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”) on the ground that “a person has been holding stroke 10 eggs of stroke 10, one’s own medicine without permission, with Dondon 49 medicine, such as twel 10 eggs, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disciplinary measure”). 3) around January 7, 2015, on the ground that “a person was holding in possession of stroke 10, stroke 10, one’s own medicine without permission, for removal of stroke stroke stroke, etc. from another prisoner without permission” (hereinafter “instant third disciplinary measure”).

(C) On the other hand, around January 12, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff’s violation of the law is habitually recognized, such as the Plaintiff’s violation of the law three times a year in total, and thus, the Defendant is limited to the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter “Execution Act”).

(2) According to Article 211(1) and Article 210(11)1 of the Enforcement Rule, the Plaintiff was designated as an interested prisoner (hereinafter “instant designated act”).

(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 6 (including relevant numbers, the purport of the whole pleadings);

2. The plaintiff's ground for the plaintiff's claim lies in a prisoner who remains with the goods used by the released prisoner in prison.