범죄인인도 심사 당연무효 확인의 소
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 12, 2015, a public prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s extradition review against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant request for review”) to the Seoul High Court on the grounds of a request for extradition of a criminal on November 16, 2012 by the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S.”). The Seoul High Court rendered a ruling on February 17, 2015 that the Plaintiff should be extradited to the United States (hereinafter “instant extradition permission”).
B. The defendant ordered the chief public prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office to deliver the plaintiff according to the permission of the delivery of this case. The public prosecutor of the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office delivered the plaintiff to the United States around that time.
C. The Plaintiff was convicted in the U.S. court under the name of the crime of computer fraud.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not prove in the process of the request for examination of this case that "an offence subject to extradition" constitutes an offence subject to extradition.
(See Paragraph 1, the instant petition for review is a non-existent legal act that was made only on the basis of an invalid and void indictment of the U.S. prosecutor.
(2) Therefore, the extradition permission of the instant case and the criminal trial of the U.S. court are not established both.
(3) In accordance with Article 234(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court has a duty to file a criminal charge against the defendant and public officials of the United States who participated in the request for review and delivery of the instant case and the subsequent act.
(C) Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful or not
A. Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides the type of administrative litigation as an appeal litigation, party litigation, civil suit, and agency litigation. Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides the type of administrative litigation as a litigation for revocation, invalidation, etc. confirmation litigation, and illegality of omission confirmation litigation.
On the other hand, current.