1. The Intervenor’s motion for the Intervenor’s participation is permitted.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was confined to C prison from July 24, 2009 to July 14, 201, and thereafter is under confinement in the Acheon Prison until then.

B. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) by asserting that the Plaintiff’s interview restriction measures, censorship, solitary confinement, etc. against the Plaintiff during the period in which the Plaintiff was admitted to the C prison was illegal (hereinafter “instant State lawsuit”). The Defendant, as a correctional officer affiliated to the C prison, was designated as a litigation performer in the instant State lawsuit.

C. On July 16, 2014, the court rendered a ruling that “the intervenor shall pay to the plaintiff 15 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 14, 2011 to July 16, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and that “the intervenor shall pay to the plaintiff 15 million won and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the above court of Seoul Central District Court 2014Na61486, which was raised by the appeal of the plaintiff and the intervenor, changed the determination of the leakage of meeting records from the first instance court of June 30, 2015 to the court of appeal, and the part of the intervenor’s claim that the plaintiff submitted to the plaintiff as evidence was rejected.” The intervenor paid to the plaintiff 25% per annum from the next day to the 2016th day of August 25, 2015 to the day of full payment.”

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 6 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the determination as to whether to grant the Intervenor’s motion to intervene.