1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 15, 2002, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years and protective custody for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (Robbery) in the Daejeon District Court’s Seosan Branch.

On March 28, 2003, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the plaintiff's claim for care and custody against the plaintiff was reversed and the judgment of the Daejeon High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant's prosecuted case. The judgment of the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant's prosecuted case. The court of first instance admitted the amendment of the indictment to the purport that Article 5 subparagraph 1 of the former Social Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7656, Aug. 4, 2005; hereinafter "former Social Protection Act") was amended by Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the former Social Protection Act.

The plaintiff appealed against the above appellate court judgment, but the above appellate court's judgment became final and conclusive on June 10, 2003.

B. The enforcement of the above imprisonment with labor against the Plaintiff was terminated on July 1, 2017, and the Plaintiff was subject to protective custody in the three prisons from July 2, 2017 to North Korea.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is categorized as a mistake that the plaintiff received a protective custody judgment for habitual robbery despite the plaintiff's habitual robbery. Since the defendant suffered disadvantage in the provisional protective custody release, the defendant is obliged to change the name of sexual assault crime, which is the protective custody, applied to the plaintiff, to the robbery.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the change of the name of sexual assault, which is a protective custody, applied to the defendant, to the robbery. However, the so-called performance suit, which orders an administrative agency to actively engage in a certain act under the current Administrative Litigation Act, is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu868, Sept. 12, 1989; 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). The lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is thus unlawful.