출국명령처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 3, 2006, the Plaintiff, a national of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “China”), entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner living in the Republic of Korea as a visiting employment (H-2) and short-term visit (C-3). On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner living in the Republic of Korea and applied for a change of the qualification for sojourn as a foreigner staying in the capacity of residence (F-2) around October 2, 2014.
B. The defendant is while conducting an examination for changing the plaintiff's sojourn qualification.
In light of the facts stated in the above, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes a person subject to the prohibition of entry under Article 11(1)3 and 4 of the Immigration Control Act; and (b) ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea until December 4, 2014 pursuant to Articles 68(1)1 and 46(1)3 of the Immigration Control Act (hereinafter “the instant order for departure”); (c) on November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a non-permission disposition, including the extension of the period of stay, for which he/she rejected an application for the change of his/her sojourn on the ground of the instant order for departure; and (d) issued a non-permission disposition, such as the extension of the period of stay, on the ground of the instant order for departure.
C. On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million and KRW 1 million as a result of a crime of violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. (2) On March 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on charges of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s alleged criminal act is limited to the work of helping a senior citizen who was in the position of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the b
The plaintiff is a Korean national in the Joseon-do, who has a mother and a permanent residence.