1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 26, 1990, the Plaintiff was admitted to a multiple prison, the term of imprisonment for life was determined as a crime of robbery. From June 5, 2009, Daejeon Correctional Institution, from June 7, 2010, Gwangju Correctional Institution, from February 13, 2012, from May 6, 2013, from May 201, and from June 8, 2013, the Plaintiff was admitted to the Ganju Correctional Institution, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. From June 7, 2010 to December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s personality rights were infringed, such as designating and managing the Plaintiff as a person subject to strict management, without undergoing a resolution of the committee for classification and treatment in the Gwangju Correctional Institution, the Port Correctional Institution, and the North North Korean defectors’ prison, etc., and recognizing the Plaintiff as a person subject to strict management. The Plaintiff’s comprehensive right to pursue happiness, which can be freely guaranteed due to the correctional officer’s essential boundary, is infringed upon and the right to equality is infringed against against the Plaintiff’s personality rights, the right to pursue happiness, and the right to equality. Thus, the Defendant is liable for compensation against the tort that violated the right to equality.

In addition, since the defendant's correctional institution made a request for disclosure of information about the plaintiff's unique expropriation, most of the false facts are recorded, it infringes on the plaintiff's personal rights and the right to control one's own information in violation of the duty to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and up-to-date of personal information of the personal information manager, so the defendant

B. As to the above argument, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, and 11, the plaintiff was subjected to disciplinary punishment several times on the ground of violence in prison, etc., and was referred to the Classification Treatment Committee on January 2, 2009, and on January 12, 2009, it was amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice No. 788 on April 16, 2013 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act.