1. To dismiss the instant lawsuit that has been changed in exchange at the trial;

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against C and D, who are public officials belonging to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, on two occasions on the charge of preparing false public documents (Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2016 type No. 10658, 2016 type No. 42912), and the Plaintiff filed a non-prosecution disposition such as dismissal, etc. on the charge of all of the charges. The Plaintiff filed a prosecution complaint and an application for adjudication (Seoul High Court No. 2016 early May 514, 201, etc.) but all dismissed.

B. In relation to each of the above accusation cases, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the purport to replace the B prosecutor belonging to the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, who is in charge, several times (Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office No. 2016, 969, 2016, 1063, 2016, 1078, 2017, 2017, 209, etc.). However, the court completed the overlapping or public inspection.

On March 8, 2017, the prosecutor affiliated with the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "the closure of the public inspection of this case") completed the public inspection (hereinafter "the public inspection of this case") on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff's Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office 2017 Petition96 case was repeated with regard to the same content; and (b) the same had already been closed by public inspection.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant seeking the performance of the duty to replace the prosecutor by the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office Administrative Appeals Commissions 2017. However, the said administrative appeals commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 7, 2017.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the performance of the duty to replace the prosecutor (before the change in the trial).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and 26, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the change in exchange from the trial of the political party was made to the Plaintiff on two occasions prior to the disposition of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office regarding the case No. 2016-type 42912, the Defendant did not implement the agreement, but did not implement it on March 8, 2017.