출국명령처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 30, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a member of visa exemption (B-1) and stayed in the Republic of Korea on May 25, 2009 after obtaining permission for change of sojourn status as a corporate investment (D-81) and applied for change of sojourn status and extension of sojourn period as a member of trade management (D-94) on May 7, 2014. The Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s above application on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes non-permission in accordance with the criteria for sojourn management for a person who is subject to penalty or fine” on January 15, 2015.
B. On September 10, 2015, when the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with an administrative litigation under this Court 2015Guhap60649, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine for the violation of the Plaintiff’s Telecommunications Business Act on September 10, 2015, and on September 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a departure order (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2, Evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff had resided in Korea for 20 years, while operating a mobile phone sales store, etc., and if leaving Korea, the Plaintiff would lose all the Plaintiff’s foundation of living and entire property; and (b) the Plaintiff left Korea, if leaving Korea, would make the Republic of Korea live away from his family members remaining in Korea; (c) the Plaintiff is both Korean nationals B; and (d) the period of family settlement in which the Plaintiff resided in Korea for 20 years, the instant disposition was deemed to have abused discretion.
B. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s sales or storage of fake phones Nos. 3, 5-4 through 9, and 6, and the entire purport of the pleading, i.e., the suspension of indictment for violation of the Trademark Act, and the suspension of indictment for violation of the Trademark Act, and the Plaintiff’s sales or purchase between the mobile phone seller and the Plaintiff’s store employees by attending as a witness of a forged mobile phone infringement case at the inner branch of the Suwon District Court as of November 2, 2010.