1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1.The following facts shall be significant to this Court:

Before the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court No. 15 to seek revocation of the disposition of imposition, including health insurance premiums, against the Plaintiff.

Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, which provides that "The National Health Insurance Act that allows a person to subscribe to a national health insurance to pay insurance premiums and to urge the person to pay insurance premiums and take a disposition to collect delinquent insurance premiums in arrears, is in violation of the principle of a democratic state, and thus excessively limits the freedom and rights of the people, and is in violation of the full text of the Constitution, Articles 5 and 19 of the Constitution, and Articles 1, 11, 17, 23, 34 and 37 of the current Constitution, and thus, unconstitutional."

B. The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that the disposition of imposing insurance premiums under the National Health Insurance Act, which imposed insurance premiums under the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, was lawful, on the grounds that Article 5 of the National Health Insurance Act, which provides that the National Health Insurance Act shall pay insurance premiums by mandatory purchase of national health insurance, was not contrary to the Constitution

The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment of retirement on the ground that the plaintiff's lawsuit constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit in a double 4 times of lawsuit, which became final and conclusive by the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap26187 and the Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap1625.

C. The Plaintiff asserted only the cause of the claim as seen above in the instant lawsuit.

2. In light of the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was rejected already, even though the court had lost due to the same reason over several occasions, and cannot be accepted by law, and thus, it constitutes a case where the defendant, who is the other party, has repeatedly filed a claim for the same contents, and furthermore, it would result in bullying of the defendant, who is the other party, and further, would have