1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

purport.

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the whole pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Ulsan District Court, which became final and conclusive on April 17, 2017, and was detained in the Ulsan District Court on October 24, 2015. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff was detained in the Ulsan District Court, which was transferred to the North Korean Prison on December 23, 2016. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff was transferred to the North Korean Prison (hereinafter referred to as “instant prison”).

B. On July 27, 2016, the head of the Ulsan Detention Center designated the Plaintiff as a person subject to meeting participation for listening to, recording, recording, and video recording of the details of meeting pursuant to Article 41(2)1 and 3 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act and Article 62(1) of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(hereinafter referred to as "designation of persons subject to participation in the meeting").

On the other hand, on April 23, 2018, the Defendant rendered a decision that the Plaintiff shall continue to designate the person who participated in the meeting for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The plaintiff is a person who is highly likely to commit corruption through external contacts, such as continuing to see himself/herself with false content and herself, and intending to gain monetary profits from his/her inmates, and is in need of detailed understanding for the safety and maintenance of order of the facility.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in order to seek revocation of the instant disposition, alleging that the instant disposition was issued without justifiable grounds, and that the Plaintiff’s personal rights, confidentiality, and freedom of privacy were excessively infringed and thus unlawful.

However, since the defendant had already cancelled the disposition of this case by cancelling the designation of a person subject to interview with the plaintiff, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no legal interest to dispute the disposition of this case.

(b) an administrative disposition;