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

A. The Defendant’s assertion in this case is unlawful as it constitutes the abuse of the right of action, which makes it unnecessary to attract the Defendant as well as abuse of the right of action, where the Defendant’s claim is filed with the same content as it has been rejected already and cannot be accepted by law, on the grounds that it is obvious that it cannot be accepted by law, even though the court has been ruled against

B. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the health insurance premium imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff two months prior to the instant case, 19 times as follows. Some of them sought compensation for damages. The Seoul High Court: (a) Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, etc., which allowed the Plaintiff to mandatory subscription to national health insurance to pay insurance premiums and to pay insurance premiums at the time of unpaid insurance premiums; (b) excessively limits the freedom and rights of the people; and (c) Articles 1, 10, 11, 17, 23, 34, 37, and 119 of the Constitution; and (d) Article 29 of the Seoul High Court’s dismissal of the insurance premium pursuant to the unconstitutional law 208.3.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.4 of the 2008 Seoul High Court’s dismissal of the appeal under the unconstitutional Act.