1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to six years of imprisonment for attempted murder at the Daejeon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 28, 2015.

B. On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was confined to Daejeon Prison on the said case, and sent it to an external medical institution on April 15, 2015 due to livering, etc., and then extracted the head of the medical department and the nurse from a violent dose and then extracted a son during the administered dose. Accordingly, the Defendant deemed that there is a high risk of suicide, self-harm, and assault of the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff wear protective equipment for the medical practice from April 15, 2015.

(hereinafter “Wearing of the instant protective equipment”). C.

On September 9, 2015, the Defendant released all protective equipment wearing the Plaintiff.

On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff was transferred from Daejeon Prison to Seoul Southern Prison.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s main safety defense 1) The wearing of the instant protective equipment is merely a medical measure that the stable implementation of the Plaintiff’s artificial kidsium, and cannot be deemed an exercise of public authority as a law enforcement on specific facts conducted by an administrative agency. Thus, it does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to an administrative litigation. 2) On September 9, 2015, the Defendant released the Plaintiff from wearing all protective equipment, and the Plaintiff transferred the protective equipment to Seoul Southern Prison on October 20, 2015, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of wearing the protective equipment.

B. In order to recognize the benefit of a lawsuit in an appeal litigation, there must be “legal interest” as stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. It can be seen that a lawsuit seeking revocation or invalidity confirmation of an administrative disposition already executed is continuing due to the fact that such disposition had been taken.