2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal to issue a travel certificate against the plaintiff on May 25, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defenses prior to the merits relating to the interests of the lawsuit

A. The defendant applied for the issuance of the travel certificate of this case to the plaintiff was the period of sojourn from June 3, 2009 to June 7 of the same month in order to attend the Korean Joint Sposium held by the Korean Institute of National Issues on June 5, 2009. However, the date and time of the above Sposium and the scheduled period for the plaintiff's sojourn had already been terminated before the institution of this case, and even if the defendant's refusal to issue the travel certificate of this case (hereinafter "the disposition of refusal of this case") is revoked, the plaintiff's desired purpose cannot be achieved, and thus, the plaintiff's defense that there is no interest in the lawsuit is no interest in the lawsuit.

B. On the other hand, a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition is intended to restore the original state to its original state by excluding an unlawful state arising from the disposition, and protect or relieve the rights and interests infringed or interfered with the disposition. Thus, even if the disposition is revoked, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of the disposition if it is impossible to restore it to its original state (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu17403, Jan. 24, 1997; 2004Du8538, Jan. 11, 2007; 2004Du8538, Jan. 11, 2007). However, even if it appears impossible to restore to its original state, it is deemed that there is still a benefit to seek the cancellation of the administrative disposition in terms of ensuring the legality of the administration and its judicial control, expansion of citizens' rights and interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2006Du19297, Jul. 19, 2007).

However, in this case, in light of the fact that Article 14 of the Passport Act provides that the term of validity of the travel certificate shall be one year, and if the purpose of the travel certificate is achieved, the travel certificate may be issued only if it is possible to achieve the purpose of the issuance within the term of validity. Since the scheduled period of stay applied by the plaintiff has already already expired, and it has become impossible to carry the travel certificate for the purpose of travel, even if the disposition of refusal in this case is revoked for the same reason, the plaintiff cannot be issued the travel certificate for the same reason. However, as shown in the overall purport of the argument in this case, the plaintiff is a Korean residing in a foreign country who does not hold a foreign nationality and engages in academic activities related to the nation, and the plaintiff has attended two times in the past, and there is no possibility of re-issuance of the travel certificate to apply for the issuance of South Korea for academic activities or discussions, the plaintiff's refusal disposition in this case and there is no possibility to seek the cancellation of the above rejection disposition for the same reason as or similar to the plaintiff in this case.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant refusal disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The underlying reason for the rejection disposition of this case is that the National Police Agency did not prove identity, but it is because the plaintiff refused to acquire the nationality of the Republic of Korea as a stateless person. The defendant's rejection disposition of this case is illegal as it violates the Passport Act and the Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons and violates Article 11 of the Constitution prohibiting unreasonable discrimination, and is also an abuse of discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) We examine the legal principles applicable to the issuance of travel certificate to a foreign national residing overseas Korean.

(A) Article 10 of the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act (hereinafter “Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act”) provides that “A Korean national residing overseas who does not possess a foreign nationality and does not possess a passport of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Korean national residing overseas”) shall carry a travel certificate as prescribed by Article 14(1) of the Passport Act (hereinafter “ travel certificate for Korean national residing overseas”) in order to come to and depart from South Korea.”

In accordance with the purpose of the Inter-Korean Exchange Act (Article 1), which intends to contribute to the peace and unification of the Korean Peninsula by prescribing matters necessary for the promotion of mutual exchanges and cooperation between the south and north of the Military Demarcation Line, in cases where the residents of South Korea visit North Korea or visit North Korea after obtaining approval and certificates (hereinafter referred to as “certificate of visit”) from the Minister of Unification as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and undergo an examination at the entrance place, the aforementioned provision permits the residents of South Korea to visit North Korea or visit North Korea (Articles 9(1) and 11). However, there are no specific provisions regarding the procedure for the issuance of travel certificates or entry inspections, etc. for Korean residents residing overseas, unlike the above detailed provisions concerning approval of visit, issuance of a certificate of visit, and examination at the entry place.

(B) However, the Passport Act is a document that provides for the issuance, etc. of a passport of the Republic of Korea to which a national traveling in a foreign country is obliged to possess (Articles 1 and 2), and in principle, the subject of the issuance of a passport of the Republic of Korea is limited to the person who has acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea, and a Korean national residing in a foreign country is not subject to the Passport Act. Accordingly, generally, the passport is confirmed as a national of one country, and in fact, requests the foreign authorities to allow the holder of the passport to enter, freely and safely pass the passport, and permits the holder of the passport to enter, pass freely, freely, and safely, and is submitted to the foreign government for its nature and purpose, and is also submitted to the foreign government for its purpose, and has the character of the departure permission for the holder of the passport.

Meanwhile, Article 14 (1) and (3) of the Passport Act provides that the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade may issue a certificate substituting for a passport (hereinafter referred to as a " travel certificate under the Passport Act") to a person prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a person who has lost his/her passport while staying abroad and has no time to wait for the issuance of a passport. With respect to the issuance and validity of a travel certificate under the Passport Act, a substantial portion of the provisions on a passport (including refusal, restriction, etc. of the issuance, etc. of a passport under Article 12) is applicable mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Passport Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21614, Jul. 7, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the person to be issued a travel certificate under the Passport Act shall be deemed to have no time to issue a travel certificate to a foreign country without any time to permit the issuance of a passport.

(C) As can be seen, the Inter-Korean Exchange Act extends the scope of persons eligible for issuance of a travel certificate to a Korean national residing abroad other than those subject to issuance of a travel certificate as prescribed by the provisions of the Passport Act and Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act. However, the travel certificate for Korean residing abroad is issued with the meaning of a non-Korean national entry permit to allow a Korean national residing abroad to enter South Korea. Thus, the meaning of a travel certificate is different from that of a travel certificate under the Passport Act, which is issued as the meaning of a permission for departure from South Korea. In other words, as long as the citizen’s freedom of transfer of residence is recognized, the issuance of a travel certificate to a Korean national residing abroad should be more careful than the issuance of a travel certificate to a Korean national residing abroad, which does not fall under the case of issuance of a travel certificate to a Korean national residing abroad. However, the issuance of a travel certificate as well as a travel certificate to a Korean national residing abroad should be more seriously restricted than the issuance of a travel certificate to a Korean national residing abroad.

In addition, the guarantee of entry into and departure from a foreign country without nationality permitted by the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act has legitimacy within the purpose of facilitating mutual exchanges and cooperation as prescribed by the same Act, and for this purpose, it is considerable significance in that they enacted the basis procedures for their entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea. However, it is insufficient to view that it includes the purport of guaranteeing the freedom of entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea. As seen above, as prescribed by the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act, in the case of North Korean residents, they shall undergo an examination at the entry place after obtaining approval and a certificate from the Minister of Unification as prescribed by the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act. Even if they acquire a foreign nationality, they shall have a valid passport and a visa issued by the Minister of Justice when they enter the Republic of Korea after being treated as a foreigner under the Immigration Control Act and undergo an entry inspection at the entry and departure port. However, in light of the purpose of the Immigration Control Act, the travel certificate for Korean residents residing overseas constitutes a travel certificate issued under the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act, and thus, it can be seen as necessary to issue or approval of a travel certificate to the foreign country.

On the other hand, in the case of persons eligible for issuance of travel certificates as stipulated under Article 16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act, stateless persons departing from Korea, persons who lose their passports abroad or whose term of validity expires, persons who lose their passports or reside overseas whose term of validity expires after temporary return from Korea, overseas adoptions (paragraphs 1 through 4), barring special circumstances, there is no reason to restrict the issuance of travel certificates, because they are apparent that they should be guaranteed departure or travel abroad, and on the other hand, in the case of "other persons deemed particularly necessary by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade" (subparagraph 5), the requirements for issuance of travel certificates, which are different from the requirements for issuance of

Therefore, in full view of the above circumstances, with respect to the travel certificate for Korean nationals residing in foreign countries who reside in the Republic of Korea who are issued for a Korean national residing in foreign countries, it cannot be interpreted that the provision on the refusal or restriction, etc. of issuance of a passport or travel certificate (Articles 12 and 14(3)) under the Passport Act is not applicable or applicable mutatis mutandis to the issuance of a travel certificate for Korean nationals residing in foreign countries. It is reasonable to interpret that the provision on the issuance of a travel certificate for Korean nationals residing in foreign countries under subparagraph 5 of Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act should apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade deems it necessary to issue a travel certificate separately (Article 16 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act, which shall be amended by Presidential Decree No. 21914, Dec. 30, 2009; however, Article 16 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passport Act provides that the issuance of a travel certificate to the Republic of Korea without foreign country is a broad interpretation or limit of discretionary authority.

(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s assertion in accordance with such legal doctrine.

(A) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the public official in charge of the Defendant asked about the change of nationality in the process of examining the issuance of the travel certificate of this case, and the Plaintiff answer to the purport that “the Plaintiff has no intention to change nationality at present and no special reason exists,” there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s refusal to issue the travel certificate of this case was a substantial reason for refusing the issuance of the travel certificate of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant refusal disposition was unlawful on this premise is without merit.

(B) In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant violated the Convention on the Status of Persons without Nationality, but the travel certificate stipulated in Article 28 of the Convention cited by the plaintiff is issued in the country of stay when the person with no nationality who legally stays in the territory intends to travel outside the territory, and it is clear that the travel certificate is not issued in the country of destination to the person with no nationality residing outside the territory of the country of destination. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(C) In full view of the purport of the statement in Eul evidence No. 11, the defendant issued the disposition of refusal of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not prove identity against the plaintiff. ① The plaintiff issued two travel certificates from 13 November 13, 2005 to 23 October 23, 2006 and 11 November 23, 2006, and the second reasons were stated as "the purpose of participating in and reporting to overseas Koreans' activities", but the plaintiff was permitted to participate in the above competition and meet with the non-party Vice-Speaker of the Democratic Unification of Korea (hereinafter "Korea"), which was decided as an anti-government organization. The national problem research institute, the sponsoring the above event, is one of the 20 non-governmental organizations in charge of overseas Koreans' activities, and the plaintiff seems to have been the representative of the Korea Youth Union (hereinafter "Korea Youth Union") among the past Cho Jae-won's activities.

As seen earlier, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has discretion to determine whether to actually permit the entry of the travel certificate in relation to the issuance of the travel certificate in this case. In exercising its discretionary power, if there are circumstances, such as the status, career and occupation of the person, the attitude toward the Republic of Korea and North Korea in the situation of the division between South and North Korea, the usual life and activity, and the purpose and duration of the activities at the time, etc. as well as the activity of the foreigner and the stateless person, it should be determined in a balanced manner with the aspect of sovereign activities as an act of reviewing entry and departure of foreigners and stateless persons, which may be somewhat conflicting with each other, and the aspect of allowing entry and departure by issuing the travel certificate for Koreans without nationality in foreign countries under the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act. The defendant's determination of whether to issue the travel certificate is unlawful by examining and judging comprehensively the above past experience and activity of the plaintiff, together with the purpose of the protection of this case's past experience and activity. The defendant's judgment as a diplomatic authority must be respected, and the plaintiff's assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 8 and 8 evidence, even if the plaintiff participated in the third time from October 23, 2006 to November 1, 2006, the non-party, a vice-chairperson of the Korean National Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) participating in the Korean Games, announced and discussed the issue of re-Korean unification as an origin agent, and discussed the strengthening of solidarity between non-governmental organizations (NGO) participating in the above Games. Further, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff visited North Korea as the representative of the KGO during the university period from August 11, 199 to August 20, 199, and that the non-party's act constitutes a violation of the law of North Korea's 10th National Assembly and No. 20th Korean Anti-National Assembly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1339, Sept. 1, 190). 209.

(D) Therefore, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case is conducted based on the Inter-Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and related passport laws and regulations, and there is no violation of the principle of equality or abuse of discretionary power, and the plaintiff's assertion of illegality is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim disputing the legality of the rejection disposition of this case is groundless, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment-Related Acts and subordinate statutes omitted]

Judges Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Judge)