2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, a national of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China"), entered the Republic of Korea on October 26, 200 as a short-term visit (C-3) sojourn status under the name of B (B) and C (hereinafter referred to as "first passport"), and left the Republic of Korea on June 21, 2006.

B. After that, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea on October 14, 2006 by using a passport (hereinafter “No. 2 passport”) under the name of A (A) (hereinafter “A”) and changed the status of stay to the status of visit employment (H-2), and continued to stay in the Republic of Korea by changing the status of stay to the status of stay on September 20, 201 when the Plaintiff’s spouse acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea on September 20, 201.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for extension of the period of stay for marriage immigration (F-6). Accordingly, when the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea with the first passport during the review process, the Plaintiff confirmed that he had been staying there, on October 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a departure order ordering the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea until November 9, 2018 based on Articles 7(1), 11(1)3 and 4, 46(1)1 and 3, and 68(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each disposition of this case”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28407, Oct. 10, 2018>

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a valid passport used by the Plaintiff at the time of entering the Republic of Korea on October 14, 2006, consistent with the Plaintiff’s identity, and thus, the Plaintiff is a valid passport.