3. The Defendant’s order of protection against the Plaintiff on August 6, 2014 is suspended until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with his/her sojourn status on April 13, 2008 (H23) and stayed with his/her sojourn status changed to overseas Koreans (F41) on September 4, 2012, is a shipbuilding of the People's Republic of China's nationality.

B. On November 30, 2012, the Plaintiff was indicted by the Suwon District Court Branch Branching 2012 Godan2597 and was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution from the above court on February 1, 2013. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing judgment and dismissed both the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10728) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do10728).

A person shall be appointed.

C. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant issued a deportation order (hereinafter “instant deportation order”) pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Immigration Control Act on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the same criminal act as the stated in the above paragraph (b) and that it falls under Article 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “instant deportation order”) and issued a deportation order pursuant to Article 63(1) of the same Act (hereinafter “instant deportation order”).

【Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff committed an act of inflicting an injury on another person while carrying dangerous articles. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the act was committed in a state of drunk and agreed with the victim, and that the Plaintiff has faithfully harmed workplace life after entering the Republic of Korea, the instant disposition was deviates from or abused the scope of discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Whether the deportation order of this case is lawful

Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary power under the social norms shall be determined by comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantage suffered by an individual due to the disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense committed as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest purpose to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and the relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9910, Jun. 28, 2007).

In light of the following facts and other various circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the instant deportation order deviates from or abused the scope of discretionary authority to the effect that the disadvantages the Plaintiff would incur are significantly high compared to the public interest to be achieved by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each statement of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 2-3, 4-1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the evidence Nos. 2, 4-1, 2, 3, 4-2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 11.

1) The Plaintiff’s father F resided in the Youngbuk-do, a native son, and moved to her mother and son G while leaving some of the families, such as her mother and her male son, in the era of Japanese occupation, and led the Plaintiff’s father H and her senior son I. On October 10, 197, the Plaintiff died in the Chinese roadside Scenic City.

2) The Plaintiff, in 2004, was married to China as a ship-salvant in China, and since J also entered China in around 2006, the Plaintiff was living in China as well as in China.

3) From May 201, the Plaintiff was engaged in the processing of steel materials in ethyl ethyl Co., Ltd., a steel-frame manufacturing company in the Silsi Corporation from May 201, and after the said criminal trial, the Plaintiff was working for a company in K in the same Corporation.

4) The Plaintiff’s white father, as well as his descendants, appears to reside in the highly fluorial spirit, and the Matern I also lives in the Republic of Korea by marriage with a Korean national.

5) The immigration control administration is necessary to strictly control and coordinate the entry and departure of foreigners into and departure from the Republic of Korea by properly controlling and coordinating the entry and departure of foreigners into and departure from the Republic of Korea and to ensure national interest and safety. However, in accordance with the global economic system of the global village era, the immigration control is required to strictly control matters concerning entry and departure of foreigners as essential to carry out the functions of the sovereign state. However, in order to globalize the living zone of overseas Koreans (referring to the concept of Korean nationals residing abroad and foreign nationality Koreans) at the same time, to promote the internationalization and globalization of the consciousness and types of activities of Korean nationals and activities areas, and to facilitate the entry into and departure from Korea and restriction of overseas Koreans, real estate acquisition, financing, and foreign exchange transactions with the aim of promoting economic rehabilitation and spreading the atmosphere of overseas Koreans, etc., the immigration control administration imposes an obligation to provide necessary support to overseas Koreans so that they do not receive unfair regulation and treatment within the Republic of Korea (Article 4), and guarantee the status of overseas Koreans in the Republic of Korea, such as entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea’s immigration control system, etc.

6) Although the Plaintiff committed a criminal act that inflicts bodily injury on another person while carrying dangerous things, considering the fact that the criminal act was committed in the influence of alcohol, it appears that the criminal act was committed in the event of alcohol, that it was the first offender, that the Plaintiff agreed with the victim, and that the Plaintiff has faithfully committed workplace life after entering the Republic of Korea, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff may commit an act that may undermine the interest or public security of the Republic of Korea, as provided for in Article 46(1)3 and Article 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act, or that there is considerable reason to believe that the act may be detrimental to economic order or social order, or that there is a concern for doing an act that may harm good morals.

D. Whether the instant protective order is lawful

As seen earlier, the instant deportation order is unlawful. Therefore, the instant deportation order, which is premised on the legitimacy of the instant deportation order, is also unlawful.

3. Suspension of execution.

A. On August 19, 2014, the instant court rendered a decision to suspend the execution of the instant deportation order until the instant judgment is rendered, with respect to a case requesting the suspension of execution 2014ia 10273, and as long as the instant deportation order is revoked, it is necessary to maintain the suspension of execution. Accordingly, the said decision to suspend execution is authorized.

B. The instant protective order is also revoked. Since it is recognized that there is an urgent need to prevent irrecoverable damage to the Plaintiff due to the enforcement of the instant protective order, and there is no other data to recognize that the enforcement of the instant protective order is likely to seriously affect public welfare, the enforcement of the order shall be suspended ex officio in accordance with Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act until the judgment of this case

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Jeong Jeong-hee

Judges Lee Dong-won

A person shall be appointed.