1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiff constitutes ex post facto concurrent crimes as stipulated in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act for two years and six months of imprisonment and one year and six months of imprisonment in the Busan District Court [2010Gohap63, 664, 665, 754, 754, 201Gohap1, 112, 131 (merged)].

was sentenced to any penalty.

The Plaintiff appealed to the Busan High Court (201No418) on July 15, 2011, but the appeal was dismissed on February 8, 2012, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On June 30, 2018, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Daegu Prison via Busan Detention Center, etc., and was released from the prison on the expiration of the term of imprisonment.

C. Meanwhile, around 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed as urology at the East Asian University as urology and received treatment of urology and urology from around that time.

After being transferred to Daegu prison, the Plaintiff received medical treatment in an external medical facility, such as seven times in 2014, three times in 2014, six times in 2015, six times in 2015, one time in 2015, one time in 2016, and one time in 2016, and received a serum test on three occasions a day in Daegu prison.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 5, 9 through 51, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a type 1 urology patient, which is an rare disease where a person completely loses the function of the blood control, and has a very serious health condition due to the outbreak of dystrophism, such as a new dystrophism, nephism, and verstrophism, and thus, an appropriate medical treatment is necessary. In particular, a 6-8 dystrophy examination is required per day.

Therefore, while the Plaintiff continuously demanded the improvement of medical treatment to the Defendant, the Defendant does not actually provide necessary and appropriate medical treatment to the Plaintiff, such as having conducted a blood transfusion only three times a day, and having not faithfully conducted it.

Therefore, the defendant was 6 to 8 times a day for the plaintiff.