1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who was a national of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “China”), entered the Republic of Korea on June 20, 2005, and was staying in the Republic of Korea on December 15, 2006 at the expiration of the period of sojourn. On November 8, 2007, when entering and staying in the Republic of Korea as the sojourn status for visiting employment (H-2), left the Republic of Korea on October 27, 2012, and entered and staying in the Republic of Korea on several short-term visas on December 11, 2013, while entering and leaving the Republic of Korea as the sojourn status for visiting employment (H-2) again.

B. On May 12, 2011, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 300,000 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da7039), and ② was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 on August 19, 2011 due to the criminal fact that gambling was done on May 12, 201 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da7039), and ② was issued a summary order of KRW 50,000 on August 19, 201 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da13283). ③ On October 11, 201, the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 70,000 on December 5, 2011.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2012 High Court 20187). (c)

On December 26, 2013, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to depart from the Republic of Korea by January 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant departure order”). The written departure order issued at the time stated that “I will order the said person to depart from the Republic of Korea in accordance with Article 68(1) of the Immigration Control Act without any specific reasons.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 regarding entry into and departure from the Republic of Korea by foreigners violating the Administrative Procedures Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, in principle, applies to the order of departure of this case, except where it is difficult to undergo administrative procedures due to its nature or unnecessary dispositions or procedures equivalent to administrative procedures.