1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 2008년 대전지방경찰청 예산경찰서에 종친인 B, C(이하 ‘소외인들’이라 한다)을 소외인들이 공동하여 충남 예산군 D에 있는 “E” 정문(旌門, 이하 ‘이 사건 정문’이라 한다)을 훼손하였다는 취지로 고소하였다.

B. As to this, the prosecutor of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, who belongs to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, issued a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that the non-party was not guilty on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the denial of

(Plaintiff asserts that the Nonparty was not a disposition of non-prosecution on the grounds that the Nonparty was not a custodian).

The plaintiff appealed against the above non-prosecution disposition and filed an appeal with the Daejeon High Prosecutors' Office, but the above Prosecutor's Office dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no new evidence to alter the decision of the original disposition office.

The plaintiff is against the Republic of Korea as Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan342169.

Although a non-prosecution disposition stated in paragraph (1) was filed to the effect that it is a waiver of duty by an investigation agency, it was dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

(Plaintiff’s appeal and appeal were all dismissed, Seoul Central District Court 2009Na21590, Supreme Court 2010Da29935)

E. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigative agency with F after attending as a witness and taking an oath in the civil case of the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul Central District Court, and F was aware that G was the manager of the instant sentiments, but the G was indicted for perjury on the ground that the G did not have any timely management of the instant sentiments, and the summary order (Seoul Southern District Court No. 2011 High Court No. 19135, hereinafter “instant summary order”) was finalized in 2011.

F. The Plaintiff filed a complaint again against the Nonparty for the crime of destroying a structure for public interest on the grounds that the Nonparty’s destruction of the written text of this case was clear by the summary order of this case, but the prosecution.