1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 23, 2013, the Plaintiff was confined in the Seoul Southern Detention Center as a criminal case, and was released on April 13, 2014.

B. On July 26, 2013, August 16, 2013, and August 6, 2013; December 6, 2013; and February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff received disciplinary measures (as warnings, 2 months of suspension of execution; 22 days of suspension of execution; 30 days of suspension of imposition) under the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act from the head of the Seoul Southern Southern Detention House (hereinafter “Punishment Execution Act”) on a four-time basis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. A prison officer affiliated with the defendant treated the plaintiff who was unconvicted in the course of operating the detention house, disregarding the Constitution and the penal enforcement law, as follows.

① A prison officer affiliated with the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to make unjust enrichment while disregarding the Plaintiff.

② The Defendant’s prison officer, on purpose, treated the Plaintiff as unfairly without paying the Plaintiff any goods (e.g., twitty).

③ After unfairly investigating the Plaintiff, a correctional officer affiliated with the Defendant took disciplinary measures, such as forfeiture of penalties, against the Plaintiff even though the grounds for disciplinary measures do not exist.

④ Although the Plaintiff sought to receive a petition, etc., the Defendant’s prison officer refused to accept the petition, etc., or gave tear, and unfairly demanded the postage stamp value.

⑤ Although the Plaintiff demanded correction in relation to the ward, guide, application form for civil petition, place of playground, etc. of a detention center, the Defendant’s prison officer was unfairly rejected.

B. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damage, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage and to make the disclosure department.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. In the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, it is difficult to find out how the Plaintiff seeks to express his/her intent to the Defendant in the part of the disclosure company and claim.