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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The key issue of the instant case was on January 5, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the order for departure pursuant to Articles 11(1), 46(1)3, and 68(1) of the Immigration Control Act, on the grounds that it is inevitable for the Plaintiff, a Chinese national, to take a serious measure on the grounds that it is inevitable for the Plaintiff, who committed an act of anti-social law, such as assault, during the period of stay, due

(hereinafter “instant disposition.” The key issue of this case is whether the instant disposition is illegal as it deviates from or abused discretion.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance at the court: ① the plaintiff was subject to departure order once due to the previous illegal stay and entered the Republic of Korea again; ② on July 24, 2009, the defendant was notified of a summary order of 700,000 won due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On August 8, 2013, the summary order of KRW 5 million was notified due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Joint Injury) and the Road Traffic Act (Crime of Violation of the Road Traffic Act). On November 201, 2013, the defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment on charges of assault on charges of drinking driving, and the plaintiff was subject to punishment on several occasions, and it is questionable how much the plaintiff's spouse's intent and ability to respect the legal order of the Republic of Korea, such as committing several violence crimes. ② The defendant is obliged to control the foreigner's spouse's entry and departure under Article 68 (1) 1 and 46 (1)3) of the Act.