209Ra1 Human Protection

Permanent Residence

Reference domicile

Medical Corporations

Location

inmate and petitioner for remedy

Daegu District Court Order 1 dated March 27, 2009 2009

August 12, 2009

1. Revocation of the decision of the first instance.

2. Dismissal of the petition for remedy of this case

3. Costs of trial shall be borne by the claimant for remedy.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

(a) The inmate is an accommodation facility by family on July 2, 2004 with proof of alcohol, etc.

inmate through a hospital after compulsory confinement; and

It was accepted from January 15, 2009 in Korea.

B. In the first instance trial on February 9, 2009, the inmate’s eligibility for confinement and the reason for confinement have ceased to exist.

The petitioner filed a petition for remedy (hereinafter referred to as "the petition for remedy of this case") but the first instance court on March 3, 2009.

27. The ground that it is difficult to deem that the need for hospitalized treatment for the claimant for remedy ceases to exist.

The petition for remedy of this case was dismissed.

C. On April 6, 2009, the inmate filed an immediate appeal of this case, and the prisoner filed an appeal. The inmate filed an appeal of this case.

On June 19, 2009, the court tried to release the inmate.

2. Determination

In accordance with Article 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act, the acceptance of an inmate shall begin unlawfully.

(1) A person who has been detained or has been lawfully detained but has ceased to exist;

employee, the spouse of his/her legal representative, lineal blood relative, or sibling (in this case, the employer)

any person who has filed a petition for remedy may file a petition with the court for remedy. As above, the person so filed shall be subject to remedy.

On June 19, 2009, in the process of the trial of the appellate court, the discharge on June 19, 2009, thereby losing the eligibility to request relief.

As a result, the claim for remedy of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, in accordance with Article 416 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 6(1) of the Life Protection Act, the first instance decision shall be revoked;

In order to dismiss the petition for remedy of this case, it shall be decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judges, Gimhae

Judges Lee Jong-ro

Judges Lee Jae-han