1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the following complaints to the Defendant.

On February 25, 2014, according to the Suwon District Court B’s decision on February 25, 2014, a vehicle owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was seized (hereinafter “instant seizure”); (i) the execution officer D belonging to the Suwon District Court was not at the site of seizure when executing the instant seizure; (ii) the instant seizure is unlawful since it was conducted without the participation of the enforcement officer (hereinafter “first petition”); and (ii) the Plaintiff was supported by having her brain lelelelelelelele with the first disability by having her brain dlelelele with the operation of the instant vehicle, and thus, the instant seizure is an infringement of the Plaintiff’s human rights.

(hereinafter referred to as “second petition”). (b)

On July 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal pursuant to Article 32(1)7 of the National Human Rights Commission Act on the ground that it is not appropriate for the Defendant to investigate the first petition as to the second petition (hereinafter “decision of dismissal of this case”), and that there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the content of the petition is true as to the second petition, the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal pursuant to Article 39(1)1 of the National Human Rights Commission Act.

(hereinafter referred to as the "decision of dismissal of this case", and both the decision of dismissal of this case and the decision of dismissal are referred to as the "disposition of this case") / [the grounds for recognition] the items in subparagraphs A and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The execution of the instant seizure is unlawful because the enforcement officer did not participate in the execution of the instant seizure, and thus, it constitutes infringement on the Plaintiff’s human rights. 2) The Plaintiff is a class 1 disabled person on the brain disease, and is able to move only the instant vehicle because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to walk. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s seizure of the instant vehicle infringes on the Plaintiff’s human rights.