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

On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a non-professional employment (E-9) of Cambodia.

On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff was judged to have undergone a narcotics inspection at the Ganman Regional Headquarters of the Korea Industrial Health Association on January 3, 2018, as a opium training reaction on January 4, 2018.

Afterwards, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation conducted a new narcotics test on the Plaintiff's urine collected at the time of the above narcotics test on January 23, 2018.

Accordingly, on January 25, 2018, the Defendant issued an order for departure issued to the Plaintiff on February 22, 2018 by applying the applicable provisions of Article 11(1)1, 3, and 4, Article 46(1)3, and Article 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act as the applicable provisions of the Immigration Control Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case’s Disposition”). (hereinafter “instant Disposition”), without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire argument of the instant Disposition in this case’s purport as to the legitimacy of the disposition in this case’s entirety, which led to a positive reaction in the narcotics inspection of the plaintiff against the plaintiff. However, this is due to the fact that the plaintiff’s entry into the Republic of Korea, which was prescribed by Cambodia on January 2, 2018, included coconcinent ingredients, and thus, the plaintiff does not constitute a person subject to an order of departure under Article 11(1)1, 3, and 4 of the Immigration Control Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful because there is no ground for the disposition.

Even if the grounds for the instant disposition exist, in light of the fact that narcotics ingredients were detected due to the reduction of abstinence, and that the Plaintiff is responsible for the livelihood of a large number of families in Cambodia, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was excessively excessive and abused the discretionary power.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

Article 68 (1) 1 of the Immigration Control Act and Article 46 (1) of the Immigration Control Act concerning the non-existence of grounds for disposition.