1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was admitted as a suspect in fraud, etc., and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment in the first instance trial. On September 14, 2015, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Daegu Detention Center while appealed from September 14, 2015, and was transferred to the Daegu Detention Center, and was transferred to the Daegu Detention Center on May 3, 2016 via the Daegu Prison and the Jin Correctional Institution.

B. On January 28, 2016, the Defendant imposed a 30-day disciplinary measure (including six-day disciplinary period, and hereinafter “instant punitive measure”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the recipient of civil-petition meetings falls under Article 107 subparag. 1 of the Administration and Treatment of Prisoners Act (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”). On February 20, 2016, the said period of forfeiture was terminated.

C. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant monetary disposition with the purport that there was no fact that the recipient of civil-petition meetings had been dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Since the instant disciplinary action was already executed on February 20, 2016, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation thereof.

B. In a judgment 1, there should be “legal interest” as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act in order to recognize the benefit of a lawsuit in an appeal litigation. Barring any special circumstance to deem that a lawsuit seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of an already completed administrative disposition continues to be an infringement of any legal interest due to the fact that there was such a disposition, it is unlawful to have no legal interest in seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation, and the legal interest in this case is a direct and specific interest protected by the relevant law based on the relevant disposition, and it does not constitute an indirect or factual economic interest.