2. The defendant's deportation order and protection order against the plaintiff on April 30, 1994 shall be revoked respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 6-2 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 9), 6-5, 7, 13 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 11), 14, 15 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 13), 16, 18, 18, 2-1 through 4, 3-1 through 3-4, 2-1, 17, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 15, 15, 16, 18, 18-1 through 4 of evidence No. 2, 3-1 through 3-4, 2- 17, 18, 19, 19, 3-19, and 3-2 testimony of accommodation:

A. On March 17, 1937, the Plaintiff was born by Nonparty 1 and her mother, who is a captain, to Nonparty 2, who is also a shipbuilding, in the documents (name omitted) on the Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gu, 1937, and he returned to the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China") on August 15, 195, while he was living in North Korea after the division of South and North Korea, he returned to the various regions of North Korea due to the Korean accidents and returned to the People's Republic of China on 1960.

B. On July 13, 1992, the Plaintiff: (a) was married with Nonparty 3, a Chinese national in China on 1961, and was divorced on 1963; (b) again, the Plaintiff was married with Nonparty 4, a Chinese national in China on 1979; (c) was willing to enter the Republic of Korea for the purpose of punishing money together with Nonparty 4, the husband of the Republic of Korea on 1992; and (d) was issued by the Government of China on 13, 1992 with a Chinese passport from the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea (the above Nonparty 4 was issued on April 25, 1991); and (c) entered the Republic of Korea with Nonparty 4 on 1 September 1, 1992.

C. After entering the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff entered the restaurant and inn with the above non-party 4, and generated an accident that the above non-party 4, who is the husband, died with the plaintiff, on November 23, 1993, 193, and the non-party 4, who was the husband, was fluent with the plaintiff, and thereafter, the plaintiff was fluent with the mother and the non-party 4, who was the husband. As such, when the plaintiff lost her husband and became fluent with her husband, the plaintiff was fluent with the intention to send her life by sending her life, and on April 9, 1994, the plaintiff was fluent with the defendant's intention to fluent.

D. However, the Seoul Police Station: (a) arrested the Plaintiff as a foreigner on the ground that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on the ground that he/she violated the status of stay and the period of stay on April 12, 1994; (b) handed over the Plaintiff’s personal illness to the Seoul Immigration Office as of April 12, 1994; (c) issued an order to protect the Plaintiff to the Seoul Immigration Office under Article 51 of the Seoul Immigration Control Act on the same day; (d) transferred the Plaintiff’s heart disease again to the Seoul Immigration Control Office on the 14th day of the same month; (d) issued an order to protect the Plaintiff by the 21th day of the same month to protect the Plaintiff by the 21th day of the same month at the Seoul Immigration Control Office; and (e) enforced the order to leave the Republic of Korea from April 22 to May 21 of the same year; and (e) forced the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated the status of stay and the order to leave the Republic of Korea from May 20.

E. On May 26, 1994, the Plaintiff submitted a written objection against the deportation order and the protection order sent by the Minister of Justice to the Defendant.

F. Meanwhile, on August 25, 197, the Plaintiff, who was residing in China, issued a certificate of foreign immigration from the North Korean Embassy stationed in China, and on March 1, 1987, issued a certificate of foreign immigration with the validity period until March 1, 1992, and on March 1, 1992, the validity period of the said certificate was extended to March 1, 1996.

2. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the plaintiff primarily sought confirmation of invalidity of the above deportation order and the protection order and sought revocation of the above order, the defendant shall raise an objection against the above deportation order within seven days from the date of receipt of the deportation order pursuant to Article 60 of the Immigration Control Act. Since the plaintiff did not raise an objection within the above period and did not follow the procedure for the pre-trial trial, the part seeking revocation of the above deportation order in the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as an unlawful lawsuit. As seen later, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit, and thus, the plaintiff's main claim does not go against it, and therefore, the defendant's judgment on the above safety defense is presented here.

Article 60 (1) of the Immigration Control Act provides that when a suspect intends to file an objection against a deportation order, the defendant shall file an objection with the Minister of Justice within seven days from the date of receipt of the deportation order through the head of the competent Immigration Office, the head of the competent branch office, or the head of the competent foreigner internment camp. Thus, the period for filing the objection shall begin from the end of receipt of the above deportation order, and the witness 1 who is an immigration control official who was sent to the Seoul foreigner internment camp and received the above deportation order by the defendant does not inform the plaintiff of the above deportation order, but does not present it, and does not notify the existence of the objection system or the period. Thus, the plaintiff may file an objection unless 180 days have passed from the date of the above deportation order under Article 18 (6) of the Administrative Appeals Act. The plaintiff raised an objection on April 30, 1994 through May 26, 195.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as he is a national of the Republic of Korea born by the Gangwon-gun, the Republic of Korea, whose parents are citizens of the Republic of Korea, and is subject to the compulsory departure order, the pertinent compulsory departure order and protection order are a disposition which serves as the legal basis for the pertinent compulsory departure order and protection order, it shall be null and void as a disposition, and it shall be revoked as it is unlawful, not as it is void

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff violated the status of stay and the period of stay. Article 46 of the Immigration Control Act limits the subject of the deportation order to a foreigner, and the above protection order is based on the premise that the compulsory disposition order is legitimate. If the Plaintiff is a national of the Republic of Korea, he/she could not be subject to the deportation pursuant to Article 46 of the Non-National Control Act, because he/she could not be subject to the said protection order, since he/she could not be subject to the said protection order, since he/she is a foreigner.

B. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Provisional Ordinance on Nationality No. 11 of the South and North Korean Government Act provides that a person who was born with the provisional appointment shall have the nationality of Joseon, and the current Act and subordinate statutes of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea shall have the same effect as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. Thus, the plaintiff, who was born with the above non-party No. 1 as a captain, acquired the Joseon nationality in accordance with the above provisional ordinance provisions, but acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea on July 17, 1948 at the same time as the promulgation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on July 17, 1948, and as seen above, even if the plaintiff was a person who acquired the nationality of North Korea from the North Korean Embassy on August 25, 197 by acquiring the nationality of North Korea from the North Korean Embassy, even if he was a person who was issued the North Korean official certificate from the North Korean Embassy's North Korean Embassy on August 25, 1977.

C. However, there is no doubt as to the fact that the plaintiff had maintained until March 1, 192, when he acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea and extended the validity period of a foreign nationality from the Chinese government. However, since the plaintiff had already entered the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff had already obtained a Chinese passport, which is the principle of issuing Chinese nationality only to the person who acquired Chinese nationality when he entered the Republic of Korea, as seen earlier, there is a doubt that the plaintiff would not acquire Chinese nationality during the period from the Chinese government on March 1, 1992, until before the issuance of a Chinese passport from the Chinese government on July 13, 1992, and the defendant argued that the plaintiff was a Chinese nationality, and on the other hand, the defendant also argued that the plaintiff would lose the nationality of the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Chinese passport held by the plaintiff, after March 1, 1992, will examine whether it was properly issued by acquiring the Chinese nationality.

D. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 5-10, 11 (the same as Eul evidence 1), 12 (the same as Eul evidence 2), Gap evidence 10, 16, 7, and 8-1 of the witness evidence, the plaintiff's personal examination result, and the whole purport of the oral argument in each of the testimony of the witness 1, the second evidence, the second evidence, the second evidence, the second evidence, the second evidence, the second evidence, the second evidence, and the second evidence.

(1) At the time of the death of the above non-party 4, the Plaintiff asked the non-party 5, who is his wife, to send a marriage certificate proving that the plaintiff was married with the above non-party 4, because it is necessary to prove the facts of the parties to the agreement with the above non-party 4 and the married couple.

(2) However, since the above non-party 5 did not have Chinese nationality, it cannot be a legitimate holder of the above agreement, and the lineal descendant holding Chinese nationality is the legitimate holder of the above agreement, and refused the plaintiff's request, alleging that he is a legitimate holder of the above agreement, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 3, 1994, along with his husband non-party 6.

(3) The Plaintiff, along with a marriage certificate verifying that the Plaintiff was married with Nonparty 7 residing in China, received by mail a foreign official certificate issued by the North Korean Embassy residing in China, and a foreign resident certificate issued by the Chinese government, and received the said agreement amount from Nonparty 5, based on authoritative interpretation that the Plaintiff may receive the agreement amount from a consul in the capacity of the spouse regardless of his/her nationality, by seeking interpretation as to who is the legitimate recipient of the said agreement amount, as well as the above Nonparty 5.

(4) In addition, it seems that China would be easy to obtain a Chinese passport even without taking a lawful procedure when it comes to take a bribe due to the current degradation of the public officials (the defendant also recognized that China's public officials are receiving money and valuables in connection with the issuance of the passport in the preparatory document dated May 11, 1995). Furthermore, since the above non-party 4, who was the plaintiff's husband, worked as a public official in China for 33 years, was retired from China as the head of the accounting department of the finance state of Ansan-do, on January 8, 191, and was retired as the head of the accounting department of the finance state of Ansan-do, which has the authority to issue the passport, it is easy to issue the Chinese passport by illegal means.

(5) Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice, as of April 15, 1994, inquired the Plaintiff’s nationality to the Embassy stationed in the Republic of Korea, and as of the 26th of the same month, inquired about whether the Plaintiff obtained permission to reside in China, and the said Chinese Embassy does not seem to have any reply to the said inquiry more than one year from the date of the said inquiry, until the conclusion of the pleadings in this case.

If the plaintiff acquired a Chinese nationality and was issued a Chinese passport in a legitimate manner, the above non-party 5 could not assert that the non-party 4, who is the husband, was the issue of the plaintiff's nationality at the time when the non-party 4, who was the husband, was trying to receive the agreed amount, as the issue of the plaintiff's nationality, and the plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to send a certificate that would have been naturally issued (Article 16 of the Chinese Nationality Law) if he had acquired a Chinese nationality at the time of contact with the above non-party 7, but rather requested the plaintiff to send a certificate that would have been issued by him (Article 16 of the Chinese Nationality Law). Rather, there was no reason to request the sending of a foreign official certificate issued by the North Korean Embassy at the Korean Embassy at the Chinese Embassy and a foreign resident certificate issued by the Chinese government. The Korean Embassy at the Republic of Korea's Republic of Korea's Republic of Korea, which is

In addition, it is difficult to recognize that the Chinese passport held by the plaintiff was properly issued by the plaintiff by acquiring Chinese nationality. Rather, it is reasonable to determine that the Chinese passport held by the plaintiff was issued by the above non-party 4 by providing money and valuables to Chinese related public officials. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff acquired Chinese nationality only because the above non-party 4 possessed the above Chinese passport illegally issued by the plaintiff.

E. Thus, the plaintiff still has the status as a citizen of the Republic of Korea. Thus, the above deportation order against the plaintiff is illegal since it was conducted against the citizen of the Republic of Korea who is not a foreigner, and the above deportation order is unlawful on the premise that the above deportation order is lawful, and the above order to protect the plaintiff until the above deportation order is also unlawful. Furthermore, we will examine whether the above deportation order or the protection order, which has the above defects, is a disposition null and void as a matter of course.

F. In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect must be one of the significant parts of the laws and regulations, which must be objectively obvious, and in judging whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose and meaning of the laws and regulations should be examined from a teleological perspective, and at the same time, reasonable consideration of the characteristics of the specific case itself is required. The above deportation order or protection order is a disposition taken against a national of the Republic of Korea who is not subject to the disposition, and its defect is serious. However, as long as there was an appearance that can be judged as a person holding Chinese nationality in holding a Chinese passport, it cannot be deemed that the defect is objectively obvious. Thus, the above deportation order or protection order can not be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and it can only be revoked.

3. Conclusion

However, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation that the above deportation order and the protection order are void as a matter of course is dismissed as it is without merit. The part seeking revocation is with merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jop (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Park Dong-young