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

A. The Plaintiff was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for committing murder, etc., and was confined to the two North Korean Prisons from December 13, 201 to December 11, 2012, and was confined to the Busan North Korean Prisons from December 11, 2012 to December 10, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff was in solitary confinement from March 2, 2013 to September 11, 2015 in the process of receiving the two prisons from the above North Korean defectors and the Busan Correctional Prison.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to relevant statutes, such as the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s alleged punishment and the treatment of prisoners, Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 51(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a medical examination for prisoners in solitary confinement shall be conducted at an external examination institution twice a year. However, since the Plaintiff’s living in solitary confinement from 2012 to 2015 only conducts an external medical examination once a year during the period of living in solitary confinement, and the remaining medical examination was conducted by a summary examination conducted by a medical officer in the prison, it is invalid for the Defendant

3. Although the Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of invalidity of a part of the Defendant’s health examination obligation, the Plaintiff is allowed only to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission against an administrative agency’s omission pursuant to Article 4 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is selected as a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission.

The defendant did not file an application for any disposition, and the health examination is merely a duty provision of the complaint which is the head of the correctional institution, and the plaintiff does not have standing to sue because it does not have the right to file an application under the legal doctrine.

On the other hand, Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a person who has filed an application for a disposition and has legal interest in seeking confirmation of illegality of omission shall be standing to sue, and the party has the right to demand the administrative agency to perform any administrative act.