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. The plaintiff is a foreigner of nationality of the People's Republic of China.
B. On June 2001, the Plaintiff entered the status of non-professional employment (E-9) sojourn in the name of non-professional employment (E-9) and was forced to retire on December 5, 2005.
C. On April 9, 2008, the Plaintiff entered the name A (hereinafter in this case’s passport) as a short-term stay status (C-2 was abolished as of June 10, 2008), and changed the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) on December 8, 2008 to Korean nationals C.
On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay on the ground that the Plaintiff’s bio-information searched the Plaintiff’s bio-information, and the Defendant rendered an order for departure (hereinafter the instant disposition) against the Plaintiff on November 14, 2014 by applying Articles 7, 11(1)4, and 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act, on the ground that the Plaintiff was “the person whose identity was unknown”.
E. According to the Defendant’s guidelines, in a case where Article 7(1) of the Immigration Control Act is violated, a ten-year measure is required to prohibit entry. However, at the time of the instant disposition, the Defendant decided not to regulate entry against the Plaintiff for humanitarian reasons, such as the Plaintiff’s marriage with a citizen of the Republic of Korea at the time of the instant disposition.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition is the valid passport presented by the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff had the name of the past B, and the name of the present A. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not violate Article 7(1) of the Immigration Control Act, which is the applicable law of the instant disposition. (2) The Plaintiff abused discretionary power from the Defendant three times after re-entry into the Republic of Korea and obtained permission for extension of sojourn period from the Defendant, and resided in the Republic of Korea for six years and seven months until the instant disposition.