1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, as a person who is confined to B prisons, the Plaintiff did not perform his/her duty to act according to the REPI rating even though he/she did not perform his/her duty to act according to the REPI rating on July 13, 2015.

However, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot specify the subject and content of the duty to act, and it is unclear whether the Plaintiff has the right to request the performance of the duty to act in accordance with the law or sound reasoning. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as a legitimate litigation seeking confirmation of illegality of omission.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff suffered disadvantage for classification treatment due to the lack of the provision regarding the term of punishment for an inorganic sentenced person, and sought confirmation of the omission for which the relevant statute was not enacted or illegality of omission for which the enactment of relevant statute was not requested.

However, since an administrative litigation aims to achieve legal stability by resolving legal disputes over a specific case by law, it is a dispute over a specific right and duty, and whether an abstract statute is enacted, etc., which itself does not directly cause any direct change in the specific right and duty of the people, and thus, it cannot be the subject of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1261, May 8, 192). Therefore, this part of the lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission is not allowed.

3. If so, the lawsuit of this case constitutes an unlawful lawsuit and thus its defects cannot be corrected, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.