출국금지처분취소
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for this part of the disposition by the court is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in paragraph (1)
2. Both parties’ assertion asserts that the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power, and thus should be revoked.
In regard to this, the defendant argues that the disposition of this case is legitimate and that the period of prohibition of departure expires after the decision of the court of first instance, and thus the disposition of this case becomes null and void, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking revocation
3. Where the effective period of an administrative disposition by this Court is fixed, if the validity or enforcement of such disposition is not suspended, the validity of such administrative disposition shall lose due to the lapse of the above period. Thus, there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of such disposition, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to remaining shapes after the expiration of such period.
(2) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition, since the term of prohibition of departure was expired from December 14, 2014 to June 13, 2015, and the validity of the instant disposition was lost due to the lapse of the relevant period, and the fact that there was an extension of the term of prohibition of departure in the past under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Immigration Control Act, has an impact on the new prohibition of departure, etc., or otherwise, that there was any infringement on the Plaintiff’s legal interest due to the remainder of the external shape. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition.
4. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the conclusion is different.