1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a five-year sentence of imprisonment for special coercion (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15527) and was in prison in B prisons after the sentence of imprisonment was finalized (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1527).

B. On March 17, 2017, the Defendant, following a disciplinary resolution by the disciplinary committee, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 214 subparagraph 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act on three occasions as follows (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”), Article 42 of the Guidelines for Safe Guard Work and Article 215 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment Act.

Pursuant to the item, the nine-day gold disposition (including the investigation period of seven days, hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition") was made, and the execution of the said disposition was completed on March 18, 2017.

A person subject to disciplinary action on February 24, 2017, ① around 16:25 on February 24, 2017, a person subject to disciplinary action is exposed once by leaving the designated seat of the next prisoner and the designated seat without the permission of the worker in charge at the 6 workplace 10 opposite to the 6 workplace (hereinafter referred to as “1 violation”), ② The same year

3.7. 5 On July 5, 200, in possession of more than two bends and two food, which are government-funded supplies, at the time of inspection of a living room in the 20th floor of the confinement room (hereinafter referred to as “violation 2”), and 3. The same year

3. On October 10, 10:00, at the entrance of Cdong workplace, the fact of violation of legitimate official instructions by the employee is recognized, such as the detection of festaculcing to prisoners at the same workplace, etc. (hereinafter “the violation of Article 3,” and collectively referred to as “each of the violation of each of the instant case”). The fact that there is no dispute, the ground for recognition of the violation of Article 1, 2, and 1 through 8 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings, as well as the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Since the execution of the instant disposition had already been terminated due to the lapse of the period set for the Defendant’s main defense, the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition against the Defendant is unlawful as there is no legal interest to seek the revocation thereof.

B. Determination is a restrictive measure.