Attorney Lee Jae-ho

Litigation Performers Choi Ho-hee, Maho-ho, Materns

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

A. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a foreigner of Uzbekistan nationality (H25) as a visiting employment (H25) on December 15, 2009, and left the Republic of Korea on November 20, 2012, and left the Republic of Korea as Uzbekistan on November 20, 2012.

15. Re-entry.

B. The Plaintiff received a medical examination to obtain an alien registration certificate after re-entry, and the Plaintiff received a medical examination.

12. 21. 21. The reaction of marijuana training has been made through the primary test through the urine test, and on January 22, 2013, the reaction of marijuana training has been made even through the secondary close test through the arsenal test.

C. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant issued the instant disposition ordering the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea by June 19, 2013, based on Articles 68(1)1, 46(1)3, and 11(1)1 and 3 of the Immigration Control Act, although the Defendant did not explicitly stated in the written order for departure. In detail, the Defendant issued the instant disposition ordering the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea by June 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The non-existence of a disposition ground

The plaintiff does not constitute "narcotics addicts" or "other persons deemed likely to cause harm to public health" under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Immigration Control Act, and "persons deemed likely to engage in conduct detrimental to the interest of the Republic of Korea or public safety" under Article 11 (1) 3 of the Immigration Control Act, since the plaintiff has not smoked in marijuana in the Republic of Korea or Uzbekistan. 2) The plaintiff does not deviate from and abuse of discretion.

Even if there exist grounds for the instant disposition, the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea as a visiting employment qualification, and had been employed in the manufacturing company for about four years up to now, and had no record of having committed the Uzbekistan or the crime in the Republic of Korea, etc., the instant disposition was erroneous in the misapprehension of the scope of discretion or abuse of discretion due to excessive disadvantages inflicted on the Plaintiff compared to the public interest to be achieved thereby.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As seen earlier, after re-entry into the Republic of Korea as to the non-existence of the grounds for disposition, the Plaintiff’s response to the training of marijuana was found as the result of the first and second inspection conducted against the Plaintiff. Thus, even if it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff smokeed marijuana in the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff at least smoked marijuana before re-entry into the Republic of Korea. This does not change even if the Plaintiff took a voice response as a result of the narcotics inspection conducted on April 15, 2013 after four months from the date of re-entry into the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, the plaintiff constitutes "narcotics addict" under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Immigration Control Act or "a person who is not likely to cause harm to public health" under Article 11 (1) 1 of the same Act or "a person who is likely to cause harm to public health" under Article 11 (1) 3 of the same Act or a person who is likely to cause harm to the interest of the Republic of Korea or public safety."

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

2) It is natural that the State has the right to prosecute a foreigner who is not desirable regarding the assertion of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power, in light of the inherent nature of the sovereignty, and the foreigner does not generally have the same freedom of residence as a national. Since the compulsory expulsion under Article 46(1) of the Immigration Control Act and the departure order system under Article 68(1)1 of the Immigration Control Act have the public interest purpose to protect the citizens of the foreigner who have anti-sociality, the decision of whether to order departure of a foreigner should be more emphasized than the disadvantage of the parties to be suffered by the decision of whether to order departure of the foreigner.

In the event that the grounds under Article 11 (1) 1 and 3 of the Immigration Control Act are revealed after entry, the subject of deportation under Article 46 (1) 3 of the same Act shall be the subject of deportation under Article 46 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the entry into the Republic of Korea is prohibited for five years in the event of departure from the Republic of Korea under a deportation order. The defendant issued a departure order to the plaintiff less disadvantage than that

In light of the fact that narcotics-related crimes may cause serious harm to national health and are strictly regulated by the Narcotics Control Act, and that the Plaintiff is a successor who resides in Uzbekistan but has the Republic of Uzbekistan nationality, and that the wife and children are residing in Uzbekistan, and thus, are likely to have no big difficulty in settling the matter again in Uzbekistan, considering the circumstances of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it cannot be said that the instant disposition is too harsh and has exceeded or abused its discretionary authority.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judges Kang Young-young