1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was detained in Incheon Detention House for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flavoring), and was sentenced to imprisonment on March 25, 2015 by the Incheon District Court (Fevour 513), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 17, 2015.

B. On July 13, 2015, while having interviewed with B in the Incheon detention center meeting 3 room, the Plaintiff was found to have three rooms in the meeting of the Plaintiff, even though C and D had been in the meeting of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was not reported to the worker in charge or requested to leave the meeting, and the dialogue between D and about 1 to 2 minutes was discovered.

C. On July 23, 2015, the head of the Incheon detention center imposed a disciplinary measure of 22 days worth (hereinafter “instant measure”) against the Plaintiff following the disciplinary committee on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 214 Subparag. 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Punishment and Execution Act (the act of deceiving or communicating with other persons without permission). The enforcement of the disciplinary measure was terminated on August 14, 2015.

On May 11, 2016, the Plaintiff released the Plaintiff from office upon expiration of the term of imprisonment.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul-5, Eul-9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion (1) that the plaintiff met with C, D and meeting room is due to the defendant's failure to fulfill his/her duty of management and supervision of the meeting room, and thus, the plaintiff is not liable to do so. Thus, the disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(2) The Defendant: (a) carried out a cruel act and assaulting the Plaintiff with the protective equipment to embankment the responsibility of the instant case; and (b) the Plaintiff was unable to receive medical treatment during the execution of the instant disposition, even when the Plaintiff was a patient with high blood pressure and urology, and such act constitutes a tort.

3. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. (1) On May 11, 2016, the part seeking the revocation of the instant disposition is that the Defendant’s main defense defense Plaintiff was released on the expiration of the term of punishment, and there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition.

(2) Determination.