1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment for murder, etc. on February 14, 2008, and the judgment on May 16, 2008 became final and conclusive and is currently serving in the Busan Correctional Institution.

B. On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action of 15 days by the Defendant in accordance with the resolution of the Busan Detention House Disciplinary Committee, and was confined in a disciplinary ward with no cost of improvement from April 8, 2017 to April 19, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On the other hand, on December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff was dispatched from a user trainee.

(hereinafter referred to as “the use of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the part of the execution of the instant disciplinary action

A. The defendant's decision on this safety defense asserts that the summary of the plaintiff's claim is that "the defendant establishes a repair unit in the ward for disciplinary action," and it is a performance suit that is not permitted under the current Administrative Litigation Act, and thus, it should be dismissed. Even if it is decided as a lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission, the plaintiff must establish a repair unit in the ward for disciplinary action and have no standing to sue because there is no right to file a request under the relevant law and regulations.

On March 7, 2018, the Plaintiff stated that “the execution of a disciplinary measure, 15 days, and disciplinary measure, from a disciplinary ward where the cost of the repair has not been installed, is illegal.” On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff corrected that “the purpose of this part of the claim is to seek the revocation of the execution of the disciplinary measure, at the disciplinary ward where the repair stand has not been installed,” and it is apparent that the content of the purport of the claim is not to seek action against the administrative agency, but to confirm that the omission by the administrative agency is illegal. Therefore, the instant lawsuit on the premise that the part of the execution of the disciplinary measure in this case is a performance lawsuit or an action for confirmation of illegality of omission.”