1. The Defendant’s disposition of departure order issued against the Plaintiff on February 12, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 18, 2007, the Plaintiff, a person of Pakistan, entered into the Republic of Korea as a short-term commercial status (C2) sojourn status on April 18, 2007, and established the Bank of Korea on May 14, 2007, and obtained permission to change the status of stay as a business investment (D8) sojourn status on October 1, 2007.

B. On October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff operated a trade wholesaler with a trade name “D” in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and was granted the extension of the period of sojourn. The Plaintiff was granted the permission for change to the status of trade management (D9) sojourn on November 9, 2012.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 29, 201, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a disposition of suspension of indictment for the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the custody of goods in occupational category, where he/she dismantled and loaded a container. Notwithstanding the fact that he/she cannot engage in land use not directly related to agricultural production or improvement in the agricultural promotion area, the Plaintiff was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the crime of the crime of the crime of the violation of the Farmland Act where he/she illegally used farmland for the purpose of export, such as heavy equipment, by leasing the land in Kimpo-si, which was not permitted to divert farmland from July 2009 to December 9, 2013.

On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for the extension of the period of stay as a trade management (D9) status. However, on February 12, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant disposition ordering the Plaintiff to leave the Republic of Korea with the purport of denying the application for the extension of the period of stay on the grounds that the Plaintiff had a criminal record of the crime of storing goods by occupational negligence and the crime of violating the Farmland Act, unpaid rent for the place of business, and failed to vindicate the business performance as a foreign investor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff was punished by a fine of five million won, and did not explain the Plaintiff’s business performance as a foreign investor after having issued the instant disposition.