강제퇴거명령 및 보호명령취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Details of the disposition
The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on October 9, 2013 as a foreigner of Liberian nationality, and applied for refugee status on December 9, 2013, but was subject to a disposition of non-recognition of refugee status on September 12, 2014.
On March 17, 2016, the Seodaemun Police Station confirmed that the Plaintiff did not depart from the Republic of Korea on December 25, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the fact of the Plaintiff’s illegal stay. The Defendant issued an emergency protection (hereinafter “emergency protection”) pursuant to Article 51(3) of the Immigration Control Act.
On March 18, 2016, the Defendant issued a deportation order (hereinafter “instant deportation order”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 46(1)8, 17(1), and 11(1)4 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant deportation order”) on March 18, 2016, and at the same time, set the period of protection as “from March 17, 2016 to the time when repatriation can be made” pursuant to Articles 51 and 63 of the Immigration Control Act, and “instant protection order” (hereinafter referred to as “instant protection order”). The instant order and the instant protection order are combined.”
(2) The Plaintiff violated the procedure, including the Plaintiff’s presentation of a written emergency protection order, at the time of the emergency protection of the instant case’s procedural defect, (i) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 14, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and (ii) the purport of the entire pleading as to whether the disposition of the instant case is legitimate. The instant compulsory departure order based on such unlawful emergency protection is unlawful as it has a significant and obvious defect in the procedure.
In addition, the instant deportation was written only in the applicable law of disposition, and there was no specific violation corresponding to the pertinent law, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be aware of what facts it was based on the instant deportation order, thereby being subject to the deportation order.
If the husband of the plaintiff's 2 substantive defect is recognized as a refugee status in the lawsuit to revoke the decision to deny refugee status in progress, the plaintiff may also stay in the Republic of Korea.