강제퇴거명령취소
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (excluding the part pertaining to the judgment of the first instance) in addition to revising the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part to be modified is 3 following the two pages (hereinafter referred to as “instant deportation order”) with “(hereinafter referred to as “instant deportation order”).”
2 Under the two pages, “The instant protection order” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant protection order”) is deemed to be “the instant protection order,” and “the case where the instant compulsory departure order and the instant protection order are referred to together,” respectively.
The Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.") shall be added to the right six parallels.
The 4th parallel 10 to 5th parallel 4th parallel shall be as follows:
【The main text of Article 11(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the assertion that a foreign woman has violated Article 11 of the Act on the Punishment of Commercial Sex Acts and subordinate statutes shall not issue a deportation order under Article 46 of the Immigration Act or enforce protection under Article 51 of the same Act until a non-prosecution disposition is taken against the relevant case or a public prosecution is instituted.”
In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s deportation order based on the investigation conducted under the protection of the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed as procedurally unlawful in violation of Article 11(1) of the Sexual Traffic Punishment Act.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
① At the time when the Defendant transferred the Plaintiffs’ disease.