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

A. On October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of horse nationality with the status of stay for general training (D-4) on October 7, 2016, and the period of stay has expired on September 15, 2018 upon the extension of the period of stay four times.

B. After the expiration of the above period of stay, the Plaintiff was arrested on March 28, 2019 on the charge of larceny while staying illegal stay.

C. On April 25, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to dismissal of prosecution with respect to assault by the Seoul Western District Court. ② On March 8, 2018, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office was issued a disposition of prosecution suspension with respect to fraud, embezzlement of stolen objects, and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act. ③ On July 20, 2018, the Defendant confirmed that there was a record of being punished by a fine of KRW 300,000 for larceny at the Seoul Western District Court, and on April 1, 2019, the Defendant confirmed that there was a record of being punished by a fine of KRW 300,000 for larceny. On April 1, 2019, the Defendant issued a deportation order with respect to the Plaintiff on the basis of Article 11(1)4, Article 17(1), Article 46(1)3, and Article 63 of the Immigration Control Act

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” in total). [Grounds for recognition] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff had the expiration of the period of general stay, and had the Defendant applied for extension of the period of general stay from January 2019 to September 2018. However, employees belonging to the Defendant have to return to the Plaintiff two years since they had passed since they had been enrolled in B University. The Plaintiff’s refusal of receipt led to the status of illegal stay due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of receipt. The instant disposition was issued based on the Plaintiff’s illegal stay status, and thus, the defect of the refusal of receipt was succeeded to the instant disposition. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful.